As we have already informed the public groups formed by the Pan-Armenian Movement are examining 6 versions connected with the crimes of the March 1 events.
One of those groups is headed by the former spokesman of the foreign affairs minister Vladimir Karapetyan, who currently coordinates the foreign relations of the Pan-Armenian center. The working group examines the version of foreign factors connected with the events of March 1 and after that. When speaking to us Karapetyan said that the working group will be an alternative to the NA ad hoc commission however will not have the same powers. In the case of the ad hoc commission of the NA the state bodies may perhaps provide some information and document, however as for the opposition working group most of their petitions will perhaps stay without response. “This fact declines the productivity of our work. If Armenia was a normal state and had developed democracy our letters should have been responded. The law doesn’t define the response of such public questions. The difference between our working group and the NA ad hoc commission is that they have to answer the requests of the ad hoc. They can even invite statesmen to their sessions, who cannot avoid being present. Let’s see what we will have because we are still examining the results of the documents we have,” says V. Karapetyan. Another point they are surveying is to find out whether there is a link between the pre-election and elections periods, the reaction of the international organizations and the vents of March 1. “The reports and opinions of monitoring missions are also worth being examined. Specifically, we need to examine their opinion about the results of elections and their final reports. My group should examine a very interesting fact. Despite the fact that the OSCE/ODIHR preliminary report says that the elections were mostly in lines with the European standards its final report says that the violations marred the whole electoral process. Thus the first paragraph of the preliminary report contradicts the final one and I really perplexed at how the international monitors could say mostly in line if there were so many violations and the elections were so falsified that it would be impossible to call them democratic,” says Karapetyan. Let us remember that there was an opinion before elections that the OSCE/ODIHR agreed to “close eyes” on the violations during Armenian elections and submit a positive report if the government agreed to allow they monitor the elections. Prior to the Armenian presidential elections last year Russia held parliamentary elections. Thus, the Russian government simply refused to invite the OSCE/ODIHR monitors. There is an opinion that the Russian government convinced our government not to invite the Europeans to monitor the Armenian elections. Under these circumstances the credibility of the OSCE would be endangered in the international arena. There were even publications in the media that this international structure cut a deal with our government and promised to assess the Armenian elections “in line with international standards.” All the Armenian government had to do is invite them to monitor the presidential elections in Armenia. Does the working group of Karapetyan discuss this version as well? “Of course, this fact needs to be examined too. We need to consider all these rumors and allegations. I think we have to do a lot here and only after that we will be able to sum up the results and make political estimation. That way we will be able to find out whether there is a direct deal between the RA government and the OSCE/ODIHR,” says Karapetyan.