As we have informed in our past publications, during the recent visit to Armenia the PACE co-rapporteurs have demanded from the Armenian authorities to present a written document to the PACE till January 26 to certify that during the February session of the parliament Armenia will discuss the issue of amending Article 300 of the criminal code. According to our sources of information from the government, John Prescott and George Colombier have promised them that in such case they will do their best not to let Armenia lose the voting right during the upcoming session.
The co-rapporteurs have demanded to amend the article 300 in a manner to erase the accusations of the Case of Seven in usurping the state power. They re-affirmed that the mentioned article is clearly political, and the people charged under this article are political prisoners, which is impermissible for EU member countries.
Certainly after this the head of the NA standing commission on state and legal affairs Davit Harutyunyan, who is also the head of the Armenian delegation to the PACE, closed his room to think about amending the mentioned article, however it is not clear yet how the mentioned seven political prisoners who have been kept in cells during one year can be set free. Can this law amendment have a reverse power upon the current judicial proceeding?
Ombudsman Armen Harutyunyan does not know about the legal amendment that the government is initiating. “Tell you frankly I don’t have concrete information that they are going to amend the article 300. I learnt about it from your newspaper. For this reason I can only express my opinion as a lawyer. There are opinions that in the past the Venice commission agreed with that law, but they forget that the Venice commission has agreed with it because they did not know that this law would be interpreted so widely and in some cases would criminalize the activities of certain politicians. There are two options: either the law must not be interpreted this way or the legislative has decided to undertake amendment of the law in a manner not to let such interpretation take place. In other words, in order not to criminalize the activities of certain politicians. This is what I understand, this is the policy, and I think it is a solution too. But if they do it and de-politicize the article, it is not excluded that the Case of Seven may be suspended.” In answer to a question how the authorities may justify their actions and explain why they keep the mentioned people in cells for such a long time the ombudsman said, “If a law is softened, it can have a reverse power. In such case the accusing party may take the accusations back by reasoning the new conditions.” It is not either clear what will happen to the people who have been charged and imprisoned under the same law after the events of March 1. A. Harutyunyan says that after reconsidering the law, the cases of the people charged under that law should be reconsidered too. It means that the law will have a reverse power on the cases of the previously charged people too. “As for the people who have been charged under other laws, their cases will not be reconsidered. This is what I understand concerning the rumors about the possible amendment of the article 300. What I understand is that there is an issue of depoliticizing the mentioned article. It would not be obligatory if the legal application practice of our country did not chose the way of wide interpretation of that law and criminalization of certain politicians. I mean that if the prosecutor’s office did not chose this way, there would not be a need for this. It turns out that our legislative body wants to do it, which I think is an opportunity out of this situation too,” said the ombudsman and emphasized that through such change the authorities also re-affirm the fact that “the political culture in Armenia is not democratic.” “The legislative body has to choose this way in consideration of the above mentioned practice in order to save the situation. In a word, they want to amend the article in a manner so that even if the law-enforcement bodies want they cannot give wider interpretation to that law,” says A. Harutyunyan.
Before the visit of the co-rapporteurs Armen Harutyunyan thought that the possibility of depriving Armenia of the vote was big. We wander whether he has the same opinion. “I think that if there are such developments, i.e. if thе criminal proceedings of the mentioned people are suspended and they are released, it will change the situation significantly. However I have the same opinion that in our country there are problems concerning human rights in the country, which should be changed. In the given case we will solve a specific problem, but it will not solve the problems connected with human rights. There are problems of methodology,” said Armen Harutyunyan.
We wander whether the ombudsman is informed about the details of the Case of Seven and whether he thinks that the accusations brought by the prosecutor’s office are justified. “I have read the excerpt from the mentioned document and my understanding is the following. As a result of getting acquainted to the accusation brought against Alexandr Arzumanyan and others, as a result of analyzing the information in it, the phone conversations, I think we should pay attention to the following fact. Alexander Arzumanyan, Myasnik Malkhasyan, Sasun Mikayelyan, Hakob Hakobyan and the others are accused in organizing mass disorders resulted in murder and attempts to usurp the power through violation on March 1-2 of 2008, under the articles 225/3 and 300/1. The excerpt contains direct or indirect proofs concerning certain crimes committed by separate people, for example in one case the accused people transported and distributed materials dangerous for the public, in other cases they called on the public not to obey the representatives of the government, get and keep weapons, etc. It means that the proofs in the mentioned document in the actions of some of the accused people might be factors of crime. It is up to the court to decide whether the accusations are justified. Meanwhile there is lack of proofs showing that such actions were a result of coordinated activities on part of one or more than one people. There are no proofs about any coordination group. There are subjective conclusions concerning a number of bugged phone conversations. Often conclusions don’t correspond with the content of the proofs. Even if the proofs in the mentioned documents are proven to have taken place, it will only prove the fact of mass disorders, but will not prove that such actions were coordinated by a centralized group of specific people. Furthermore, we think that the mentioned excerpt does not prove the fact that on March 1-2 of 2008 mass disorders were provoked and organized by Alexander Arzumanyan, Nycol Pashinyan, Shant Harutyunyan and the others.”