– The RA Prosecutor General and the Justice Minister almost simultaneously submitted their objections to the report of the Ombudsman of RA on the Presidential elections February 19 and post-electoral developments. The main point of their objections were that the Ombudsman exceeded the framework of his authorities. Do you as a former Ombudsman agree with that?
– The authorities of Armenia and especially the law-enforcers accept every statement of the Ombudsman with objection. The law on the human right watch says that the Ombudsman may make recommendations about any phenomenon in the society. The word recommendation is quite broad in its meaning and if the sentence says a recommendation and doesn’t clearly say “I recommend” it doesn’t imply any obligation or clear action. Convincing or persuading will also be considered as a recommendation. It is not right to adhere to words. The Ombudsman is someone, who has the trust of the society as well as the respect. His subjectivity shall not be considered negative. Vice versa he shouldn’t rely on the clear requirement of the law but from the soul of the human rights. The Ombudsman must always take a leading role. It is similar to the fact that the right implies more opportunities but the laws define the frames of it. I think such an approach from our government comes from the fact that the institute of the Ombudsman is quite young in Armenia. I don’t know any other CIS country, which prosecutor general would have such a negative objection to the statements of the Ombudsman. As a rule in developed countries, for example in Sweden, which is my favorite one, people have the following approach to the Ombudsman’s report, “I wonder what’s going to be in there?” Once the statement is made people wonder what they have done to deserve such an opinion of the observer. There are such cases in many other less developed countries than Sweden. There was discontent but I don’t know any cases of objections. Usually after such reports they invite the Ombudsman, listen to his recommendations. Later they show their approach how they are going to correct the flaws or they say what they learned important from the report (several hours after the interview the government stated that they are going to organize NA hearings on the Ombudsman’s report, where the justice minister and the prosecutor general will express their viewpoints – A.A).
– The institute of the Ombudsman was first tested during Robert Kocharyan’s presidency and both of the Ombudsmen, including you, were elected during his presidency and of course by his consent. However, some time later Kocharyan started not to like your activity and Armen Harutyunyan deserved his “least successful staffer” label. How would you explain this?
– The fact that the President of Armenia showed an incorrect approach means that Armenia is still in the mentality of authoritarianism. Of course the President didn’t treat me the way he did to Harutyunyan however he wouldn’t accept me for a year. What Kocharyan said about Harutyunyan is unacceptable because he is one of the 4 persons of the second level. The first one is the NA chairman, Prime Minister, president of the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman. The legislation speaks of this with both the salaries defined and powers. I think that the second president of Armenia shouldn’t have allowed himself to say the above-mentioned of the Ombudsman. It is not relevant for the president. Even if he didn’t agree with the Ombudsman’s statement he shouldn’t have said that. Do you think it is always a pleasant thing for the Ombudsman to communicate with the officials? Not at all but our post required us to. The judges are not happy to handle this or that court case.
– Besides the “objections” of the prosecutor general the statement of the president has never had a president in other countries, has it?
– No never. I know that there was pretty sharp approach in Kyrgyzstan. There was discontent to the Ombudsman but there was no objection.
– It means that out authorities with their approach to their Ombudsman cannot compare with developed countries and can only compare with Kyrgyzstan.
– You know, Kyrgyzstan occupies a leading place with its human right institute among the states of Central Asia.
– As a former Ombudsman how do you estimate Harutyunyan’s extraordinary report?
– That report was quite required but it was not balanced in terms of stylistics. The first part of the report is more analytical, psychological and informative. I think that this part is not quite close to the typical Ombudsman’s report in the classical meaning. I don’t agree with the opinion that the Ombudsman relied on the subjective information published by the media. I think that the Ombudsman not only may but also has to rely on data, which are not provable. In our country people are in fear. When you ask the witness of it’s possible to write his name and address and process the case they often refuse to. It means that in our country people have feelings that the law doesn’t protect them. The first part of the report simply relies a little less on the law and instead implies for analytics. But it doesn’t mean that the Ombudsman is not allowed to do so. Now our law-enforcers are trying to judge the report stricter in the framework of the law, however the Ombudsman is free to be expressive and open.
– The statement of the prosecutor general was targeted at the objections to the report. Was there any remark in the report that would be convincing to the prosecutor?
– I find it very strange. I have socialized with the employees of the prosecutor general and despite all the negative phenomena I have always said that in the meantime we have quite prepared and professional cadres. In this case I think that there was a political order. Or I think it is a wrong understanding of statehood. It seems like we are living in a totalitarian regime. I think that by doing this the prosecutor general is trying to justify not only his activity but also the actions of the police.
– The employees of the same structure, the prosecutor general’s office during their interview given to one of the TV companies two days ago considered Harutyunyan’s statement a political order.
– If the human right watch has to be more sensitive to the public demand then the government thinks that it has to be sensitive to the state interest. They forget that the constitution says that the human rights are supreme and that the state and the government must abide with those. Unfortunately, this beautiful and relevant sentence is not accepted in a proper manner in our country. And it is not an accident. We haven’t had statehood for years and have lived in the totalitarian regime for years, where the state interest has always been supreme compared to the human rights. Even in the most developed countries the protest actions have always been pacified by the police with balanced methods. So what happened in our country? Was the police more prepared? There are photos that the policeman’s baton is hitting the head of a UN expert. Did it happen or not? Now can we not find out who hit that person in the head? Why are these cases not discussed and why are the culprits not punished?
– Why do you think the justice ministry and the prosecutor general simultaneously made their objections?
– I think it solves the issue of demonstrating the government as a monolith structure. The justice ministry has issues which significantly vary form the prosecutor general’s. It should be closer to the human right watch. When I was the Ombudsman the style of the justice ministry was destructive. It was surprising for me. As you see I wasn’t destroyed after that and vice versa I collected and articulated all the materials and proved that this style is unacceptable. Very often when the government stresses that the society is not developed yet it means that the government is not developed either.