“The operation of March 1 in the Liberty square was not implemented by the state security service and the head of that service Grigory Sarkisyan did not coordinate that operation,” Armenpress was told by the state security service (SSS) in answer to the question of the ombudsman’s report on electoral and post-election processes concerning the reasons why the head of the state security service Grigori Sarkisyan participated in the operation in the Liberty square on March 1. In answer to a question whether G. Sarkisyan coordinated that operation and why the SSS took Levon Ter-Petrosyan under house arrest the SSS informed that it is not the duty of the state security service to implement such operations. Meanwhile they mentioned that during those events Mr. Sarkisyan was at the place of events because according to the law on providing security for persons subject to special state protection, ex-president Levon Ter-Petrosyan is subject to state protection. On that day there was a clash between the police and the participants of the illegal rally, which could be dangerous for Ter-Petrosyan’s security. What could be dangerous to Ter-Petrosyan? “It is the duty and responsibility of the SSS to organize and coordinate the activities of the service, and this body is the one to be responsible for its duties and responsibilities,” informs the SSS and specifies that on March 1 the state security service estimated the operative situation in the square and carried out its responsibility and duty and “took ex-president Levon Ter-Petrosyan to a more secure place in the place of the event, then escorted him to his residence to provide security for him.” “The information alleging that Levon Ter-Petrosyan has been forced under house arrest is not true. Such legal regime does not exist in Armenia. After the SSS officers escorted him to his residence, his right to move freely has not been limited. At the same time Ter-Petrosyan was informed that the officers of the state security service would not escort him to participate in illegal events.” Concerning the ombudsman’s report the state security service also stated the following: “The ombudsman could officially apply to the state security service and get satisfactory answers to those questions to include in the report. It is a pity that instead of that the ombudsman preferred to come up with uncertified information and questions with some meanings without a corresponding research, which we think is not a good step on part of the ombudsman.”
