– Are you sufficed with the fact that the Special Investigative Service filed a suit only against one policeman, Gegham Harutyunyan, who used illegal force against the protestors of March 1? This is done when the policemen, who used Cheryomukha-7 weapon, are not only free but in service as well.
– It is the investigative body that conducts a criminal probe against the police. On March 1 morning 4-5 policemen were beaten in the Liberty Square. On the next day two policemen were beating young people near a Niva vehicle close to Gladzor University. This should also become a subject of probe. It is not that the policeman doesn’t have the right to beat. If there is a rubber truncheon then he should be able to prove the necessity of its use. The investigative body should examine every single similar case. And we should realize that the filing of criminal case against a policeman means that he is going to jail by all means. If he hit somebody, who wasn’t injured then this may become a clause for the disciplinary behavior violation.
– You always mention that among the objectives set for the ad hoc you were not able to accomplish only one – revelation of the circumstances of death. In the meantime, the members of the Fact-Finding Group provided you with reports, which imply facts about the death cases. Can’t those be useful for you at all?
– In those reports there are numerous violations and omissions made by the investigative bodies. The body has given quite a through explanation regarding some of the brought up facts. Part of those violations was accepted and another part the explanations of the investigative body wasn’t admitted by us. As of the death of Tigran Abgaryan I criticize the work of the investigators, I give an expert-level response to the work done by the experts and I think that there are mistakes. On the next day, in some paper they write that the policemen didn’t wish to shoot at the people; they boycotted the order to shoot and instead the commander of police forces Grigor Grigoryan took the automatic gun and left somewhere and guns shots were heard, which caused the death of Tigran Abgaryan. Or they had done some analyses on Cheryomukha-7 but there is no concrete fact, by whose Cheryomukha a person died. There are no clear allegations. Of course there are points in their reports that I will take into account but I cannot accept their report as a conclusion just like I refused to accept the conclusions drawn by the police.
– The NA RPA faction chairman Galust Sahakyan stated that the committee has complied with the objectives set. Do you, as the head of the ad hoc commission, have the same opinion?
– I have numerously mentioned that the committee has fulfilled all the objectives set even the circumstance of death if meant literally. But if the question is who cause death and who was guilty then we have unanswered questions here. The commission wasn’t able to say that due to the wrongdoings of the given person the other one died. But the concrete circumstances on how the dead people were killed we have that on record.
– Will you speak about the activities of the opposition, government and police, which is a part of the government? Can you mention that to which of the three the criticism will mostly focus?
– I don’t have such objectives. Of course there is going to be certain evaluation of the activities of the law-abiding bodies. But currently the most important objective of the commission is to present legal, political recommendations, which would exclude the repetition of such tragic scenarios in the future. We cannot return the 10 victims. Of course, the best solution of avoiding its repetition is to enforce the mechanisms of punishment. But it is very important that all the other mechanisms work properly so that such phenomena are excluded in our country. Our country has various social-economic and legal issues, doesn’t it? According to the NA decision I should also respond to the actions of the policemen. And this evaluation is separable in the matter of time and space. The evaluation is going to differ for the clashes in the Liberty Square and the area near the French embassy.
– Has the committee yet succeeded in providing evaluation to these reasons and make recommendations, which would exclude the repetition of such cases?
– I have mentioned what we haven’t succeeded in. As for the rest we have progress and success.
– Will your report have any legal consequences?
– It’s hard to tell. Let us assume that we or the Fact-Finding Group finds certain violations in the activities of the investigative body or the investigators. We will bring those up and encourage discussing those. The consequences of this discussion are out of the authorities of the committee. Let us not forget that due to the March 1 events the chief of police, deputy chief and the commander of internal forces were fired.
– It is known that on March 1 and prior to that there was a headquarters established within the President’s office, the members of which were high-rank politicians. Have you met them yet or have you investigated whether the activities of this headquarters were legal?
– There is a plan of activities connected with the decree of the President, which implies what the Police and Ministry of Defense should jointly do. That plan was there and I have submitted that during our sessions.
– When preparing this report what similar instances have you had?
– Both in the meaning of the structure and evaluation the ad hoc commission was trying to make its report based on such reports and facts, as well as international practice. Unfortunately for the moment being from among the reports of Armenia was the report of October 27, which I’d like to use as a precedent but unfortunately it didn’t help us. I am also trying to use the Ombudsman’s report.
– The ad hoc commissions of the parliament created for October 27 case revelation, Black Oil case and others didn’t reveal anything essential. There was even an opinion that those were created to cover the actual cases. Such an opinion is also heard about the committee headed by you.
– If you think that those cases were covered in 110 pages then you are mistaken.
– In its 1677 report the PACE has signified the existence of your ad hoc and mentioned that the final report will show whether the case was studied equally and objectively. Will the ad hoc be able to suffice this demand?
– My report will first of all be addressed to the broad masses of the society, to those people, who are able to objectively make conclusions. For me the opinion of the majority of our population is very important. I know that there are going to be people, who will be complaining and will be saying vice versa. The people, who were initially against the ad hoc commission, will refuse to agree with the conclusions of the report.
– The ad hoc has existed for over a year now. During this period haven’t you find out the moods and attitude of the society?
– No, I can only catch their looks when walking on the street.
– And what have you caught?
– I know what I have caught. After the report it will become clear what their attitude is. For me it was shocking when some groups mentioned that they were not going to accept the report prior to its publication.
– Do you think the relatives of the 10 victims will be satisfied with the report?
– No, they are interested in who caused the death of their family members. They don’t have the answer and so they will be dissatisfied. So am I.
– Mr. Nikoyan, don’t you regret that you submitted the post of the head of the ad hoc? Your name will hence be connected with the tragic events of March 1.
– To be true, I don’t regret that and I think I have to demonstrate my interference during the conduct of such important initiatives. Of course, in the beginning I was also surprised about why I was chosen. Then during my work I asked myself the following question, “why no me?” Regardless of the outcome of the report, the events of March 1 were so tragic that will remain in the lives of the people and will never be forgotten. I, being a party member and considering myself a bearer of nationalistic ideology, an honest person, think that why I would have been involved in the revelation of this key case.