Yesterday the parliament finished the discussions of amendments to articles 104, 225, 300 and 301. The main disputable issue was the fifth provision of Article 225, according to which “if an event turns to mass disorder, then a person who leaves the place of the event immediately shall not be charged under the punishment of this article.”
Heritage party MPs asked whether parents who are looking for their children, or doctors and journalists shall be punished as well. “If a journalist is keeping silence there, then shall be punished. MPs, who are preventing it, doctors or parents cannot be viewed as participants,” said Davit Harutyunyan, who leads the ad hoc developing this recommendation.
To note, on March 1 when the group of people coming from the side of Malatya reached the strikers near the city administration office, a small group of provokers came out of the mentioned group and attacked the police. At that time many people, including MP Myasnik Malkhasyan, Hakob Hakobyan, as well as Nycol Pashinyan were trying to prevent them. However, now the people who were trying to save the police from provokers are charged for the same crime as well. At the same time Heritage member MP Armen Martirosyan was stabbed when trying to save a high rank policeman from provokers.
Davit Harutyunyan does not exclude the possibility that the fifth provision may generally be taken out of the draft and suggested to discuss that issue with other issues during second reading. The first reading will be put for voting with the original text today. Generally the main topic of the discussion was why they were trying to amend the mentioned laws, which were the main law provisions involved in the criminal case of political prisoners. Is it done to make the law integral or there are political reasons as well? Are these changes made to comply with the PACE requirements? ARF member MP Armen Rustamyan said that the mentioned law amendments are directly connected with both the PACE requirements and the criminal cases. Concerning the expected changes Rustamyan said that it should be clearly specified what mass disorder means. “Only after having the specific description and definition you can say that one has taken part in it and shall bear responsibility,” said the MP.
“I am not a lawyer, but as a participant of the unrest of March 1, I think that such changes are aimed at legalizing the activities of the ones who provoked the mass disorder. As a result of such law amendments I shall bear responsibility too. When people are going out to take part in a demonstration to address their word to the government, it is their constitutional right and there should be specific separation between this right and attempts of violence. I am not sure that there may be certainty if they just leave the term “mass disorder”. By saying mass disorder I automatically remember the events of March 1. That day the mass disorders were organized and provoked by the authorities so openly and evidently that there was no doubt,” said Anahit Bakhshyan. The MP also said that on March 1 the demonstration near the monument of Myasnikyan was peaceful, but mass disorders took place and people were killed on Paronyan and Leo streets. “How did it happen? How did the mass disorders move to that place from the place of the demonstrations? It means that such provokers who can do such things can always be found easily. I am recommending to take out the term mass disorders. We will have problems because of this term. With this law they want to press down the people’s movement. You can’t ever press down the people’s movement,” said Mrs. Bakhshyan.
By the way, during the discussion and during the speeches of Heritage representative MPs the hall was almost empty and there were only 7-8 MPs, who were gathered and talking in one place. Thus, in almost empty parliament hall Zaruhi Postanjyan announced specific information concerning the real places where the victims of March 1 unrest were killed and where the mass disorders happened. “Despite all shortcomings in the law we may assure that our colleagues are not connected with those crimes. Even if the first provision of the 225th article is changed, the definition of mass disorder is changed, if any event is turned into a mass disorder, any person leaving that place immediately will not be subject to punishment but anyway the police and prosecutors will have sticks in their hands and green light to persecute anyone they want (the fifth provision). In the accusation of the Case of Seven there is no word stating that the accused people organized, instructed to organize mass disorder or committed murder. Only Myasnik Malkhasyan had a stick, which did not have any fingerprints on it. Even if after the amendments the prosecutor’s office revises the accusation and discharge the accusation of murder, the other part of the accusation will still be in force. Thus the judge will have an opportunity to conduct the trial without the accused persons and will do his best to sentence them to imprisonment. Certainly there may be amnesty after that, but we will not be able to prevent such provocations in the future any more,” said Zaruhi Postanjyan and reminded about the requirement of the PACE resolution 1620, which states that the cases of the people charged under the articles 225 and 300 don’t contain any justified proofs and should be canceled.
At the end of the discussion Davit Harutyunyan petitioned to submit recommendations to the draft law in written form and suggested to vote for the amendment with first reading. The mentioned draft amendments to the Criminal Code have already been submitted to the Venice commission and the parliament will vote for it today.