– After the articles 300 and 225 of the criminal code were changed you and many other people believed that the political prisoners resulting from the events of March 1 would be set free but it did not happen and they are still in cells. The only change is that the case of seven was separated. Is this what you expected?
– No. I did not expect that. I hoped that the accusations would be raised and those people would be set free. However it did not happen. It came to show that there is a sickness in Armenia which is that the law-enforcement bodies have certain problems with law application. They are applying the law widely, and as a rule this application of the law is against human rights. Second, there were important changes in those laws, specifically the provision on actions resulting in death, which were excluded from the criminal code. But in fact the organized action the accusers were trying to present appeared in a deadlock. They were not able to justify that and they simply changed the strategy. Now you can imagine how the court proceedings may finish. Even though some people were blaming me of expressing an opinion beforehand, but after reading the details of the investigation I said that I did not see any justifications of organized actions there. Now they indirectly prove that my opinion is true.
– The Armenian National Congress is blaming you of inactivity. Specifically, they say that you have not come up with a public announcement concerning the ongoing judicial proceedings.
– I am sorry for that situation but the ombudsmen of other countries and the EU commissar don’t express their opinions about such processes in advance. We are expressing our opinions after court resolutions and this opinion does not concern the resolution only but the overall process as well. When there were decisions concerning the finished processes, I expressed an opinion concerning the processes and resolution of the court and said that if such cases prevailed in the European court we would lose. I mean that I have expressed such opinion in a legal context. And if people blame me of abstaining from political opinions, I have numerously said that I never express political opinions. As for the ongoing processes, our monitoring continues, the person in charge of the monitoring is participating in the judicial processes of Alexander Arzumanyan and Suren Sirunyan, and we will come up with a statement after these processes are finished. By the way, our statement will not concern the court decision only but the overall process. For this purpose we are documenting all what is happening now. We have documented the shameful situation with witnesses during the past session as well. We will include these facts in our report.
– Don’t you think that the ANC’s allegation concerning the fact that the case of seven is finished now and you can come up with a report concerning the related processes is justified and reasonable?
– This process has not finished but it was separated to different parts and now these processes continue. What should I say about it now? It means that as a result of changes in the law they had the opportunity to change the format of the judicial case. During the previous law they could not handle the case otherwise. They are mistaken when they think that the case of seven has finished, legally it is still in process. I have always come up with an opinion about all finished cases and now we are monitoring the mentioned processes and will make a report after these processes are finished as well.
– Can’t you publish a mid-term report?
– What is the mid-term report? What more should I say if I have already said that the situation with the witnesses is very shameful and we will lose in the European court?
– The next accusation against you is that you are loyal to the limitations of the rights of peaceful demonstrators in the Northern Avenue on part of the police…
– We don’t see any problems of being committed to be or not to be loyal. Our mobile group is going there every day after 6 p.m. to see the situation in the place. I have made statements on the basis of these facts we have collected. I don’t understand what the problem is with being or not being loyal. If you think that I should go there and strike with them, then…
– I mean the actions of the police.
– That is why we said that the actions of the police were unconstitutional and limitation of public and local events.
– By the way, you have made a statement condemning the police for closing the Northern Avenue recently. Later you named the “political walks” as “local events”. Don’t you think that it allows the police to justify their actions?
– There is no definition of “political walk” in the international law terminology. The ombudsman cannot ignore the legal definitions and use newly invented terms in order to have someone’s sympathy. What does it mean a political walk? Under the Constitution and the European convention it is called as public and local event. That’s all. These are public local events which we informally call as political walks. It is the constitutional right of people and the police limit people’s rights by applying the people’s rights widely.
– The next “inactivity” on your part is that you have not supported the opposition’s demand to apply to the Constitutional Court in order to recognize the president’s decree establishing emergency situation on March 1 as unconstitutional. Instead of that you recommended to apply to the administrative court, which the ANC believes is not the right place to apply to. The ANC alleges that you escaped from their demand.
– It is not true because our opinions may not always be the same. I am ready to discuss the issue with their lawyers any time and prove that they are not right. In that situation the decree was based on the Constitution and they are citing the provision concerning Protection, which were against that decree. It means that the decree was constitutional but there were actions in it which were against the law on Protection. It means that the decree was against the law but not unconstitutional, thus it is under the jurisdiction of the administrative but not the constitutional court. If they can prove the vice versa they can come and do it. When they come we are ready to accept them and discuss the issue with them. The Constitution writes that necessary actions may be undertaken according to the current situation, but such actions should correspond with the law. Thus they believe that the mentioned actions and measures were against the law on Protection. Accordingly it was against the law and has nothing to do with the Constitution.
– During the meeting with Samvel Nikoyan, the head of the commission looking into the events of March 1, former chief of the police Haik Harutyunyan said that no one had ordered him to shoot at people and the police acted in accordance with the law on Police. This means that they used their rights and “protected themselves”. However according to the law on police it is prohibited to use weapons in massive crowds of people. What do you think about Haik Harutyunyan’s announcement and the actions of the police?
– I think that the police made many mistakes during the operation that day, and these mistakes concerned disproportionate actions. Thus, the one who should be responsible for that is Haik Harityunyan. I don’t know what he said to Nikoyan but he will come to the commission and I am curious about what he will say there. However I believe that the actions of the police were disproportionate and being the chief of the police in that period he is responsible for this failure.
– Were you present at the commission’s close session where the ex-commander of the internal forces of the police Grigori Grigoryan said that the special forces of the police were instructed to take weapons with them by Haik Harutyunyan?
– I was not there but I know that he said that. This is not the only thing he said. After that several officials were invited top the commission and they said that they had been directly instructed by their superior.
– Instructed to shoot?
– Different things, and these orders came from Haik Harutyunyan.
– The ANC has applied to the Constitutional Court to bring a case against he CEC’s decision, according to which any person having registered in Yerevan or even not having a citizenship can take part in the mayoral elections. Don’t you think the opposition’s allegation that the authorities will try to raise the number of their supporters through bringing them from other places is reasonable? Is this decision of the Central Electoral Commission constitutional?
– I will not discuss whether this issue is unconstitutional or no because it is the business of the Constitutional Court. However from the point of view of human rights, and in consideration of the fact that Armenia is a typical post-soviet state, where administrative resources often decide the outcome of elections, I think that the opposition has certain reasons to worry. The administrative resources may be used for the purposes of the authorities. I think that it will be good if only the citizens of Yerevan are entitled to take part in the mayoral elections of Yerevan. If the logic is different then citizens of Yerevan having registration in Vanadzor can vote for mayoral elections in Vanadzor city too. If there has not been such precedent before why should be it different in Yerevan now?
– Do you think that if the political prisoners are not set free till the PACE monitoring session Armenia’s issue will be urgently included in the agenda of the PACE plenary session? According to your opinion how long may the government keep this status of the political prisoners?
– Generally it is so difficult to foresee what a political body may say. The monitoring commission is a political body too. In this case by saying authority we mean the political decision, that is why I don’t want to answer these questions. I don’t know what they do and how. Generally I am for solving this problem and doing it based on the amended version of the law. It would be good if they find grounds to let those people free. But I can’t say what they may do because the political situation changes often and I can’t say exactly what will happen.
– You have numerously submitted letters to the police concerning different incidents but these letters were not always satisfied in a duly manner. Can we say that the police and ombudsman’s office are having problems with cooperation?
– There used to be cooperation to certain extent and we were satisfied with such cooperation. However in the recent times our announcements are ignored. In consideration of the fact that our announcements don’t help any more I think that here the ombudsman has much to do because he can raise this issue at international levels, which I have done already. The administrative system should be sensitive to this issue as well. This shows that the role of the society and its voice are very small in the political system, as a result of which it is easy for them to ignore. However eventually I will find a solution to make the voice and words of the ombudsman heard and respected. We will find a solution, however today I agree with the fact that now our announcements don’t help solution of the problems.