Recently the most popular topic that is being discussed in the internal political life is the report of the Ombudsman of Armenia and the objections of the Prosecutor General and the Justice Minister. A few days ago parliamentary hearing was held in this regard. Below we are presenting the interview with the Ombudsman of Armenia Armen Harutyunyan, conducted in the beginning of the week, prior to the NA hearings.
– There is an opinion that the campaign against you is initiated by the former president Robert Kocharyan. Do you have any problems with him?
– I am just doing my job and can’t tell whose personal interests it touches. The prosecutor general and the justice minister state that you have exceeded the framework of your functions.
They are the ones, who are exceeding their powers to evaluate the report of the Ombudsman. This is an unprecedented thing in the history of Ombudsmen.
– The representatives of the prosecutor’s office think that you are doing a political order. Can we know whose order you are fulfilling?
– I am doing the order of my conscience and conviction. Unfortunately our society hasn’t reached the level to understand that they shouldn’t fulfill any political orders.
– In your opinion, why did they release these objections at the time when you were not in Armenia and set the parliamentary hearing right after you returned?
– The objections were weak and that’s why they decided to give us short time not to be able to properly respond to those.
– There is also an opinion that this whole story was organized by the government to demonstrate to the European structures that the democratic institutes of our country work without intimidation.
– The post-electoral developments and the events of the March 1 should have caused the activation of the Ombudsman’s activity. I didn’t have any other choice. I needed to show an appropriate attitude to these events. The most dangerous thing is the imitation of reforms.
– Will the government comply with the PACE resolution?
– It will be very sad if they don’t do so. They have done certain things but it can be considered two steps back and one step forward. I signify the idea of creating an independent investigative body. If this body turns out to be independent it will enable to differentiate between the political and criminal prisoners. If there is no objective investigation the suspicion and tension will remain.
– Who do you think is going to be included in the independent committee?
– I think it should include both parliamentary and non-parliamentary forces, otherwise the international organizations will not provide an expert.
– What’s your opinion about the establishment of the public council?
– It’s not a bad idea, but it’s not a priority. The institute of balances – the parliament and other structures must conduct their constitutional functions. In this case these issues will be mechanically solved.
– Do you find the dialog between the government and opposition possible?
– This attack against the Ombudsman’s report already proves that there is no environment of dialog in this country. I think the government and the opposition have one topic to speak about – what means shall be undertaken to guaranty the protection of human rights.
– The objections of the prosecutor implied one of the questions raised in your report – was the judication order of searching followed. As a response it was mentioned that the Liberty Square is not someone’s property. It is a public place and therefore there is no need for a court warrant for the search.
– They have marred our report and started to struggle against their own words. We have not raised the issue about the court warrants. We only spoke about launching criminal cases. Regardless of whether the area is public or private a court warrant is needed and a criminal case must be launch. Moreover the prosecutor must verify the reality of this data. If there is no court warrant all you can do is examine the area. Your searching abilities are limited.
– One of the objections of the Justice Ministry is that in your report you found the actions of Levon Ter- Petrosyan positive in terms of uniting.
– All we wanted to do is to explain that there was no objective situation for the rallies. We wanted to explain that there was an objective situation why so many people went to rallies. And we considered this in the aspect of freedom of speech. There was limited information. I don’t know what the Justice Minister is trying to say now. I wish that our country developed to a level when the prosecutor would understand that he is only a prosecutor and that the Justice Minister should not play the role of the prosecutor. And the NA should not wait for the objections of the prosecutor and only then start a discussion.
– Are you trying to say that when submitting those objections Gevorg Danielyan was playing the role of the former deputy prosecutor?
– I have not noticed a status of a Justice Minister on his part. Moreover both of them wrote the same thing. The impression is that they are trying to provide a number of objectors. In Georgia the Ombudsman wrote an open accusation letter to the president. Sahakashvili came to the Ombudsman office to meet him. In Armenia the prosecutor’s office is submitting accusations to the Ombudsman and the Justice Ministry is totally assisting the process.
– Will you resign if the campaign against you gets even more intensive?
– I will never resign and will not even make a crime to be fired.