– Mr. Danielyan, you are already aware of the revision of articles 225 and 300 of the criminal code of Armenia and the conclusion of the Venice Commission regarding that matter. In your opinion how will these amendments reflect the case of the detainees of March 1 as well as the suspects of the case of seven? Don’t you agree that due to the changes the law become even more restrictive?
– My personal opinion is that this law will bring to tempering because the attitude of the Venice Commission is that there is a need to clarify the first part of article 225 of the criminal code, which relates to mass demonstrations. In the second part they see issues as well. At this moment I cannot guess what developments will be registered because not always clarifications cause mitigation. But if the provision is adopted relating to the fact that the ones, who participated in the demonstrations but didn’t murder anybody should be not responsible it will mean that we will have to revise the sentences and litigation of the ones, who were arrested as a result of the March 1 events.
– Will the political detainees be released after the adoption of the draft as these changes were initiated by the requirement of the PACE? The PACE resolution 1620 reads, “few cases were closed by the accusations of articles 225 and 300 of the criminal code of Armenia.” “The cases of the people, who are accused based on articles 225 and 300 should be closed except for the cases when they committed severe crimes or ordered/assisted others to commit violence.” Especially for the suspects of the case of seven we don’t have substantiated evidence of their guilt.
– The problem is not their release. Ultimately mitigation doesn’t mean emancipation from the punishment. Mitigation means moving their crime to some other more favorable article, the sanctions of which will be milder. Secondly, the Constitution of RA clearly answers this question, by which the mitigation of the punishment of a person has a retrospective effect. According to article 42 of the Constitution even legal acts of the person may also have a retrospective effect. It means that if the criminal code defines some mitigation of a crime it also implies some retrospective effects. Here there is only one issue. It is spread only on the ones, who hadn’t been sentenced yet and not the ones, who are already in jail.
– After PACE resolution 1620 resolution 1643 was adopted, in which the PACE expresses pity that the government hasn’t benefited from its sole right of granting amnesty. Does this mean that there was a requirement of releasing the prisoners?
– There was no objective of releasing them. As usual it is presented by the media. It is not a right thing to let the person, who committed a criminal sin, go. It all depends on evidence, such as whether it is only provided by the police officer or some other sources as well. There was no objective to release the prisoners without anything.
– What do you think about the behavior of judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan, who had to cancel the court hearing due to the fact that the political prisoners wouldn’t sit down and next time he continued the hearing by letting them stand?
– Ask Mnatsakan Martirosyan.
P.S. Danielyan refused to answer any other questions relating to the case of seven by saying that he was in a hurry.