– It is already been three months that the ad hoc convenes only working sessions, which deserves various interpretations. What is the reason?
– There are numerous conversations about the creation of the ad hoc and they may continue even after the completion of the mission of the ad hoc. The thing is that the commission itself decides what kind of session to summon and whether it should be a regular one or extraordinary. In fact these two sessions differ from each other in terms of quorums. If we summon a session and have a quorum we called it a regular session and if not it’s called just a working session. There were three such sessions in my office. The difference is that if the quorum is sufficient the sessions are held in a larger room if not they are held in my room. There is no difference for the members of the ad hoc but perhaps there is a difference for the journalists. For us the important thing is the discussion of issues.
– Are you trying to say that the problem is only the absence of a quorum?
– If you know that some members of the ad hoc are not in the country you know that the quorum is not going to be sufficient. If there is not we just say that it’s going to be a working session. In that case there is no need to publicize any material. For that purpose I don’t invite journalists. Although anyone who showed up was able to be present at the sessions. But it’s not expedient that you publicize information about the feelings and emotions of the deceased victims who share with us during the sessions. Besides that we want to have narrow circles from time to time so that people would be able to express their opinions without feeling ashamed or tensed. During the last working session we have invited he friend of the deceased victim Tigran Khachatryan. I think there was no need to publicize the emotions of the friend and make him feel sorry for being open. On that day the journalists, who were present also thought it’s not a very good idea to publicize information.
– However, according to certain information as well as media you don’t convene regular ad hoc sessions because the former chief of police Hayk Harutyunyan refused your invitation to participate in the session. What do you say about this? And in general, who of the officials have you invited to the sessions so far?
– I as the chairman of the ad hoc met the former chief of police Hayk Harutyunyan. It was an official working meeting. We have together discussed all the questions, which the ad hoc raises during our working sessions. I have asked him the questions and received answers and presented them to the members of the ad hoc. After the discussion with the ad hoc members they found it expedient to personally meet with Harutyunyan as they had questions to ask. Even if one member of the ad hoc wants me to invite him then I should do it. But to say that I constantly invited Harutyunyan and he always refused is not quite true. Only the difference is that the journalists think if the session is held in my room and not in a large one it’s not a real session. Sometimes it’s necessary to have separate conversations with certain people, which is useful and doesn’t necessarily have to take place in the large hall in the presence of journalists. At that time these meetings become official and people are not able to speak without feeling tensed.
– In that case why would you not publicize the details of your conversation with Harutyunyan.
– I am supposed to first of all inform the ad hoc members of the results of my private conversations. I will surely send an invitation to Harutyunyan again.
– Have you invited other high-rank officials besides Harutyunyan? Let’s say Levon Ter-Petrosyan or Robert Kocharyan.
– I wouldn’t like to speak about that. I not only sent them invitations but also the questions they were asked to answer. I told them that you made statements and now come to sessions to explain to us and bring up evidence. Their response was negative or ignored. Levon Ter-Petrosyan hasn’t answered any letter so far. Do you think he now has to come to the session and answer questions here instead? I still think that he has a lot to tell not only to the ad hoc but also the society.
– How about Kocharyan?
– I mean both of them because these two men led the same nation for many years. Elementary politeness assumes that they should have both showed up to the sessions of the ad hoc and given explanations to the people. Because if you carefully watch the speeches of the mentioned to leaders you will notice phrases “for people,” “on behalf of people,” etc. In that case why would they not come to the same people and give explanations. The ad hoc has to ask them certain questions.
– One year already passed since March 1 events however the ad hoc hadn’t so far met anyone, who had serious participation in the events of March 1. Doesn’t this mean that your initiatives have failed in general?
– Yes, to a certain extent the work of the ad hoc has been incomplete. But it was incomplete because of them and not the ad hoc members. They are the guilty ones. Ultimately the ad hoc was created by the ad hoc, which a branch of power. And this means that the executive has a negative opinion about the legislative. I don’t consider this as a personal insult. I consider this as an insult against the government, the legislative branch which the executive used to cooperate with. Every president should be in close cooperation with the legislative.
– When Hovik Abrahamyan was elected chairman of the parliament he met with the members of the ad hoc and expressed willingness to help the ad hoc with whatever he can. He also meant personally inviting the officials to sessions. Have you asked for his help?
– I haven’t asked for Mr. Abrahamyan’s help yet. If need I will definitely ask for his help. In the second half of April I will invite Harutyunyan again and if issues come up I will definitely ask for Abrahamyan’s mediation because he is willing to help us. Journalists have their circle of interests and I have mine. Everything is clear for the ad hoc except for the circumstances of the death of victims. For me a step toward the revelation of the circumstances of death is more important than just interrogating Hartutyunyan. Although I find the meeting with Harutyunyan important as well because the ad hoc members wish to do that.
– You said that everything is clear for you. Do you know who gave the order to shoot at people?
– Do you think there was an order? Are you sure?
– Don’t you think that that the police could have done it without any orders?
– Thus the law on police clearly mentions in what cases the police has the right to open fire. This means that they have the right to shoot in certain cases and there was no need for a clear order from above. Let’s suppose they gave an order. Do you think anybody will consent that he was ordered to shoot if they had the right to open fire as defined by the law? Of course not. And all the generals that were present on March 1 said that they didn’t receive any orders to fire. It means that they said that Harutyunyan didn’t give them such an order. Do you think that if Harutyunyan comes to us he will say he gave an order? Of course not.