“We have decided to adopt certain approaches in connection with the ‘Case of Seven’ because we believe that this case is the ‘litmus test’ characterizing the entire chain of these proceedings. I find that the ‘Case of Seven’ will be a specific kind of experiment on the path of the strategic development of our people. That’s why we are going to concentrate our scarce resources on the ‘Case of Seven’. All the sessions will be attended by the representative of the Human Rights Defender or personally me. We should establish control over the ‘Case of Seven’ because the whole potential of the participants of the trial will be concentrated here.” Human Rights Defender Armen Harutyunyan announced during yesterday’s press conference. “The monitoring of trials of March 1 showed the prosecution lacks distinct evidence, and the courts mostly judge in favor of the interests of the prosecution. Meanwhile, the ombudsman notes that he believes in the defense because the attorneys are very professional,” he said. In his opinion the trial of the case is a litmus paper and may become an ordeal for the country’s future prosperity. The Ombudsman thinks the case of seven can be an indicator of strategic development of the society because both prosecution and defense have been focusing efforts in this direction. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s Office will constantly monitor the trial, use its scarce resource to the full, and follow attentively the arguments of the two sides and the judge’s behavior. The office will come up with a final assessment, possibly with a report, at the end of the court proceedings. Armen Harutyunyan thinks it will guarantee a professional and unbiased approach of their office, avoiding an early opinion. In the given situation the Ombudsman sees pardon and amnesty as the best way out, although he is for amnesty since it does not require the detainee’s pardon or repentance. “It is a demonstration of good faith towards the case. During the meeting with journalists on November 22 the representative of the PACE Thomas Hammarberg stated that after he becomes aware of the case of the 7 he can say whether there are sufficient grounds to send the case to the court. Harutyunyan didn’t comment on Hammarberg’s words and instead said that the court will clarify the case. “Because I think that the defense will still bring up this factor. I have examined that case. I have only spoken to attorneys. Both of the sides have their arguments and in the result of collision of arguments it is possible to be maximum objective,” said Harutyunan. In the given situation the Ombudsman sees pardon and amnesty as the best way out, although he is for amnesty since it does not require the detainee’s pardon or repentance. “It is a demonstration of good faith towards the case. During our visits to prisons and my talks with the detainees I was convinced that they shouldn’t made repentant as they don’t plead guilty of any crime. The court is already hearing the case, and let the prosecutors unveil the reality and prove their crime. Man is not bound to prove his innocence.” Armen Harutyunyan couldn’t say for sure how one can get acquainted with the 40-volume case within nine days. Anyway, he didn’t want to underestimate anyone. “Maybe there are talented people who can get acquainted with the material within nine days which I can do only in 90 days,” said Mr. Harutyunyan. The Ombudsman urges mass media and civil society institutes to follow up the trials on March 1 events without major scandals and shows as they delude and distract from real arguments hindering professional observation. The monitoring held by the Human Rights Defender showed that the court trials mostly turn into shows with the participation of judges and journalists. “We still have much to do to be called a legal country as opposition journalists and businessmen still encounter obstacles in our country,” Armen Harutyunyan said regarding the state of human rights in Armenia. Weeks ago the minister of justice Gevorg Danielyan stated that amnesty is granted to the ones, who accept their guilt and the ones, who refuse to accept their fault are not granted pardon. “It means they accept their guilt and promise it won’t be repeated,” said the minister to our reporter. The Ombudsman said that he doesn’t admit such an attitude and the collision of the amnesty and pardon institutes. In the given situation the Ombudsman sees pardon and amnesty as the best way out, although he is for amnesty since it does not require the detainee’s pardon or repentance. “It is a demonstration of goodwill towards the case. During our visits to prisons and my talks with the detainees I was convinced that they shouldn’t made repentant as they don’t plead guilty of any crime. The court is already hearing the case, and let the prosecutors unveil the reality and prove their crime. Man is not bound to prove his innocence. They find it a political process. Therefore it is not right to adopt an approach and pity them. Let the court prove that they are criminals. Let’s wait and see what the court will determine,” says Harutyunyan. The journalists were also interested how the Ombudsman would respond if it suddenly turned out that the authorities and the Prosecutor General tried to conceal some facts in the case of 7. The ANC announced lately that in parallel with the March 1 case there was also another one where the military men had given testimony. However the latter was sponged later. “We have no inhibition at all. When such an issue occurs we will express our opinion about the Prosecutor General”, said the Ombudsman. According to the monitoring of all the other cases related to March 1 events A. Harutyunyan concluded that as a rule the courts are defending the prosecuting side in the event if their evidential base is not convincing. On December 17 T. Hammarberg will present his report about Armenia to the PACE and, he announced, if nothing will be changed by that time his reports will be very rigid. The Ombudsman didn’t want to return to the issue saying that in our country the issue of developing of the democracy isn’t Hammarberg’s problem. It’s our problem. The human right watch also reflected to the policy of the governance towards Bjni factory of mineral water which belongs to Sukiasyan’s family and the right of the property in our country in general. He said that if there are violations in Bjni and the actions of the government are conditioned by that, it will be desirable to apply the same rigid policy to the other companies as well. As of the violation of the right of the property A. Harutyunyan also adverted to the judges’ verdicts. “How can they declare that they are pleading to bond the registered property if the factual proprietor of that is Myasnik Malkhasyan? What a proving factor is that? I don’t know whether he wanted to prove or didn’t understand what he was doing or it was the lack of experience”, asked the Ombudsman. And finally coming to the Human Rights Protection in Armenia A. Harutyunyan concluded “if the journalist who is not pro-governmental always has problems, and the businessman who is not pro-governmental always has problems, it shows that from the point of human rights protection we are too far from the condition to be a legal state.”
