“168 Hours” has numerously discussed the issue of the first program of water supply system development and the facts of violations in that program. In 2000 the World Bank (WB) provided $30 million credit to the Armenian government for that program. The Armenian government provided $5 million subsidy. “A Utility” company, the lessee of the program implementer, “Yerevan Water Supply Company” (YWSC), asked for additional $2 million from the WB in 2004. It is worth mentioning that in 2003 a commission on supervising the effectiveness of foreign credits, grants and human aids was founded within the National Assembly, which has supervised the mentioned credit program. In March, 2004, the head of that commission, ARF member Vahan Hovhannisyan addressed harsh critics to that program in the NA and introduced the preliminary conclusions. Mr. Hovhannissyan had a speech, in which he specifically showed pictures of old facilities on the screen, which “A Utility” had presented as new ones and had envisaged more expenses for them. Vahan Hovhannisyan also said that the Italian company, besides the fixed amount, had received bonuses despite the fact that it hadn’t done its responsibilities in a due manner and had failed the works. The donor organization WB, the water economy state committee, the program implementation office for community development and the other interested parties have been informed about it. V. Hovhannisyan promised during his initial sensational speech to present the final conclusions of their work to the parliament in autumn of that year. However, after his speech made in spring he forgot about the discovered facts and violations. It is also worth mentioning that we have been informed about the numerous facts of violations in that program by British engineer Bruce Tasker, who has worked in that commission as expert. We tried to find out from Vahan Hovhannisyan what happened to the final conclusion and why he doesn’t remember about it any more.
– Mr. Hovhannisyan, why didn’t the commission led by you submit the found facts to the general prosecutor’s office or the Police? Why didn’t it try to launch legal proceedings based on those facts despite the fact that you introduced numerous facts of violations in spring of 2004?
– We did not have that right, it could be done by the speaker of the parliament. According to the NA charter, commissions shall submit their conclusions to the NA. It is up to the NA to decide what to do. The NA can send it to the prosecutor’s office; it can just consider it as information and can bring up for voting. I think that there is a shortcoming in the NA charter concerning the issue what the NA had to do. However, it is clearly defined that the commission cannot itself apply to the prosecutor’s office. The commission was appointed by the NA, and it was accountable to the NA. We have submitted our conclusions, and it does not concern me what the NA had or could do.
– During that speech you promised that you would submit the final conclusions to the NA in autumn. It was expected that it would be more sensational than the previous event, but it did not happen.
– We did. Besides the water program we have supervised some other programs too. The water program was the biggest one. There were some consequences. The head of the water state committee, Gagik Martirosyan was removed. And the Italian company, which won the competition and was implementing the program, I don’t remember the name…
– “A Utility”?
– Yes, “A Utility”, it was forbidden to take part in any competitions any more and it was banned to operate in Armenia.
– But it left only after finishing its program.
– There were some consequences. Certainly I think that those results had to be stricter too, but people should understand that the authorities of the commission were limited. We have done all what was required by the charter. Later we applied to prolong the term of the commission’s existence. It had to be done in agreement of all the factions. Definitely there was no agreement by the government and the commission terminated its work. If that term was prolonged, we might find something which would result stricter punishments. However, there was no political agreement. In that period the commission was founded by the agreement of the three coalition forces.
– In your view, why didn’t the NA submit those facts to the Police?
– It had to be done by the branches of the authorities. We were instructed to study the issue and submit a conclusion. We did it. However, we are not the police or the prosecutor’s office.
– Did you have sufficient facts concerning the water supply project to launch legal proceedings?
– I think yes. There were components there, which could be ground for legal proceedings or at least it was clear that there were economic machinations.
– You say that your job was supervising and it was the NA’s authority to apply to the law enforcement bodies. Indeed you were a vice speaker and could support the submission of those facts to the police.
– Yes, but please note that the mentioned commission was founded by the agreement of the three coalition powers and I was representing one of those three powers, which had the minimum number of supporters in the parliament.
– Are those documents evidencing the violations and the conclusions still kept in the NA archives?
– Of course, I have such documents too. They are not confidential and you can find them in the NA web page too.
– Anyway, why didn’t the NA continue the work that the commission had started?
– I have already answered to this question. It is not up to me.
– Should we ask this question to Arthur Baghdasaryan since you said that according to the NA charter the conclusions had to be sent to the prosecutor’s office by the NA speaker?
– I don’t know.
– Tasker has submitted numerous facts of violations within that program to “168 Hours”. You spoke about those facts during your speech in 2004.
– Almost all the conclusions connected with the water supply system were mostly based on Tasker’s studies and all what we have presented to the parliament is true. Tasker has studied the details of that program deeply.
– Now also GAP, a US organization on Human rights protection, and the WB department of institutional integrity (INT), the Serious Fraud Office of Great Britain are interested in these proceedings too. Recently the Ambassador of Great Britain expressed his concerns to “168 Hours” concerning the mentioned allegations. In addition, the head of the foreign affairs department of GAP, Beatrice Edwards is coming to Armenia at the end of November to meet all the interested parties. It is not excluded that she may wish to meet with you as well.
– With pleasure.
– In that period even there were rumors that your party wanted to address critics at the ARP coalition force with that speech.
– Absolutely no. The republican members of the commission supported that conclusion. The conclusion cannot be prepared by the commission head only; it had to be approved by vote results. The commission consisted of opposition and coalition representatives, where ARP had the most number of representatives. The republicans have accepted this conclusion as the others. It would be a political speculation if I or anyone else spoke about it after the commission did not exist any more. I haven’t crossed the limits of the conclusion and will not do it in the future either.
P.S. At the end of the conversation V. Hovhannisyan said that they had submitted copies of the conclusion to the president and the government.