– Mr. Harutyunyan, what do you think about the PACE resolution on the democratic institutions of Armenia?
– I am estimating it very positively and I believe that the Euro Union is trying to help Armenia continue its development through the democratic path. This is the purpose of that resolution. The level of protection of human rights can show how well Armenia is developing through that democratic path.
– The PACE is petitioning Armenia to make a number of changes immediately. Do you think those requirements are acceptable?
– Despite that resolution I have specified in my speeches and reports that Armenia has a problem of systematic changes from the point of view of human rights. The mentioned report writes about it. However, when these things are said and stressed by the human rights defender, no one pays attention to it. Is it necessary to emphasize those problems in a resolution and then to make a noise and say that the problems need to be solved?
– Last week the NA speaker Tigran Torosyan announced that only those provisions of the resolution will be done, which correspond to the interests of Armenia. Later, the head of the Armenian delegation to the PACE David Harutyunyan commented on Tigran Torosyan’s announcement and said that all the provisions in the resolution correspond to the interests of Armenia…
– Tigran Torosyan and David Harutyunyan may have their opinions. My estimation is that all the provisions of that resolution correspond to the interests of Armenia. Of course, Armenia is a sovereign state and it can decide which provisions of that resolution to do or whether generally it needs any of them or no. It is up to us to decide what our interests are.
– What do you think about the suggestion of the PACE to conduct independent investigation of the March 1 events?
– I agree with that and I think that such a commission should be established, which activity will be trusted by the society. If the society does not trust that commission, such commission can not be a solution for this problem. The national security starts from the bearing point where there are harmonic relations between the citizens and state, where being opposition does not mean to be an enemy. The state and the authorities should create conditions for that. If the authorities and citizens are alienated, there can’t be security. States collapse in cases when citizens don’t feel that they are citizens or the owners of their country. When a part of the society is protesting, the others should not say that they are trying to ruin the state. Being opposition and government does not mean a death struggle, but a balance system. Such system has been created not to allow either of the parties be the full owners of everything and let each of them enjoy the government of the state according to their participation share. In such case the security will be strong, as well as the society will trust the public institutions. Human rights should be a highest value and we should feel and see it in the reality. Do we see that or no? If we don’t, it means that we have system problems.
– Do you think that the law on rallies and demonstrations, which amendment has been criticized by the EU as well, should be amended to improve or just the amendments should be cancelled to leave it as it was before that? There have been some disagreements connected with the previous law as well.
– I think that not only the amendments should be voided, but some more provisions as well. However, others may think that it is a critical approach. For instance, the provision which writes that after a rally or demonstration resulting in violations, crisis and victims people cannot organize other rallies until the end of the investigation works (such investigation may last two years). It is anomaly.
– Do you think that the authorities have sufficient will and wish to do those requirements of the PACE?
– I think they do, otherwise the Venice commission representatives would not come here and would not cooperate with them. Besides that, I have met with the commission members as well and they were quite satisfied. I understood that they had found a common language.
– Do you think that the PACE may discuss the issue of depriving Armenia from its voting right in June?
– What can there be that we can’t do? You know, it is not up to them, but up to us; we are the ones who should think about it because we are the ones who need it first.
– If we thought that way, the events of March 1 would not happen and the law on rallies would not be amended consecutively.
– No, this is a process, there can be mistakes in the process, and you can correct your mistakes. The problem is not that you cannot make a mistake, the problem is that you should always have a political will to realize that you have made mistakes and then correct your mistakes. If you do that you are doing it for yourself, but not for the EU or the U.S. There are no countries which have passed the way of democracy without problems.
– You have been to prisons and have met with many people arrested as a result of March 1 events. The opposition alleges that the arrested people are political prisoners. The detainees say the same. Do you think that the citizens arrested as a result of March 1 events are political prisoners?
– No one has used such term so far because there are certain standards for that. From that point of view we will not use such term either. The investigation should be done professionally in order not to give place to suspects that there are political prisoners in the country. 60-70% of those people allege that they are political prisoners. Both the judicial and investigation accusations should be well-grounded in order not to suspect. Weak facts will cause suspicions because the society is interested to know why there are so many people in the opposition. And if the investigation works show that none of them has committed crimes, they should be set free.
– Your answer has two meanings. It can be understood in the following way: the police should not manipulate the case in a manner so that there can be any suspicions.
– No, they can’t manipulate the case so well. What I am saying is that the investigation bodies should conduct an in-depth investigation with all facts in order not to have any suspicions and punish only those people who should be punished.
– The head of the US Congress Helsinki commission Alsi Hastings said the following to the Armenian president’s adviser Vigen Sargsyan during the hearings on Armenia: “if you are trying to convince us that there are no political prisoners in Armenia now, it means you have gone mad.”
– We should wait and see what legal grounds and facts they can show in the court. It will be clear after the court’s verdict. I think that the court may set more than half of those people free, or they may be set free just in the middle of the investigation process. However, whoever is punished, we must make it sure that they have really committed crimes. The factor of suspected facts should be excluded.
– What do you think about the fact that some MPs have been deprived of their personal immunity and arrested?
– I don’t know what facts the prosecutor’s office had and how it could go to the parliament and convince the majority that they have facts. I don’t know whether the parliamentary majority had grounded legal facts or just did that for political purposes. However, I believe that MPs can be deprived of their personal immunity only in rare cases.
– Do you think it is normal to arrest everyone when the investigation is still in process?
– This is one of our main problems, and it is not connected with this case only. In Armenia usually the police are using their right of arresting people when conducting investigation works. This has become a style of activity for the Armenian police. The prosecutor’s office is often applying to court to arrest people, and the court is approving those petitions. They did the same thing this time too. It is very bad; they can’t arrest people so often. I have always stressed that fact in my annual reports. I don’t believe that so many people could commit crimes under the Article 300 of the criminal code (power usurpation through force).
– What do you think, who is guilty of the bloody events of March 1?
– As a lawyer I will refrain from giving an answer to that question because it will be emotional. Personally I think that all we are guilty because it means that something was wrong in the society. If we try to accuse each other now, this separation will grow. It means that there was a serious problem in the society, which resulted in such tragic event.
– According to your opinion what are the problems resulting in such situation? Your opinion is important because people are trying to solve a part of those problems with the help of the ombudsman.
– I think that those problems were connected not with material, but human, honor and human rights values. Those problems were very critical in some sectors of the society, and they chose the way of making those problems more critical. We need to understand the entire complex of those problems. All we are responsible for that situation; the authorities have more responsibilities because they have the power, and the opposition is responsible as well because a large amount of people are following them. Institutions have their part of responsibility as well. However, it is clear that all we should hold each other’s hands and go through the way of consolidating our society.
– Mr. Harutyunyan, will your extraordinary report be in the same line as your statement concerning the events of March 1?
– At that time we were there and saw everything. Of course, it was a little emotional. This time we are trying to be more objective. This one will not be emotional. I think that this time we will be more objective.
– After the mentioned statement Robert Kocharyan said that you were the worst specialist promoted by him. Do you know why he said that?
– I don’t know, he is the one to answer to this question. I only tried to behave myself as an ombudsman would do. I cannot say why he said that.
– Do you think that after the presidential election democracy has stagnated in Armenia or, as some officials say, nothing serious has happened?
– From the point of view of democracy now Armenia is in a crossroad. Now we have to either continue our way through democracy or turn to being an authoritarian state. It is up to us, we are the ones to decide that and no one can obligate us make a decision – neither the EU nor the U.S. From this point of view now we have to choose our future. We have not been so democratic. This is the reason why it happened. If we were a democratic country, the events of March 1 would not happen. We did not have a democratic system, which was the reason why those events happened. Now we have to build a new reality. We had some facade elements, but we did not have a real democratic system. Such things don’t happen in countries with serious democratic system.