– Are you suffice with the work of the ad hoc looking into the events of March 1-2, which will take your extraordinary report and the reports of European monitoring missions as a basis for its expected report?
– In our report we tried to examine the events impartially and make serious conclusions. Generally it is good for everyone that the commission has chosen this way. As a citizen of Armenia I am sufficed with it. I am sufficed not as a co-author of the report but as a citizen of Armenia because if the ad hoc prepares the report with this method, it will be good for everyone.
– Don’t you think that the commission is doing a tricky thing by including your report and the report of the European monitoring missions in its prepared report? Armenia is being monitored by the PACE, which wrote in the resolution 1677 that after the mentioned report it would become clear whether the principles of impartiality have been met. Don’t you think that with this step the commission tried to escape from the PACE’s negative estimations?
– I would not say such things because the important thing is what is being done. As a result in our society a new political culture will be created after which we cannot step down from that level. If they did it for the purpose of making the PACE to agree with it, I don’t think anything wrong there, however I think that it is not the only motive of their actions. A new culture is being formed and the authorities are ready to realize that anyway they did some mistakes and as a result of this failure we had such situation. Democracy starts from self-criticism. There is no one who can be absolutely true. If the ad hoc has chosen this way, it can’t criticize the corresponding state institutions in failures.
– During the ad hoc’s session it became clear that the report will focus on social and economic issues. Don’t you think that this may serve a reason to stray and refer to the social situation as the main reason of the events of March 1?
– The social and economic situation has been polarized so much that there are a few very rich people and a lot of very poor people, and this extremism is a factor which supports such processes. This is the most painful issue. You can ask any citizen whether they know any more painful issue than this one. We don’t have any more painful problem so that we try to solve it this way. If there is a problem of social fairness, always one can easily manipulate this society and stray from the rational way. In such situation you should criticize not the one who strayed you from your way, but yourself for failing to correct the situation.
– What conclusions should the opposition and society make from this report?
– The authorities should come to the conclusion that they should work out the social polarization in this country and make a medium class not with administrative orders but through the creation of market economy in order to get rid of monopolies. I am addressing my words at the authorities because my mandate is more for being an opponent to the authorities. The opposition does not have to do much here. The opposition does not have a big role or tools to handle this issue.
– Last week the special investigation service launched criminal cases against four policemen for abusing their powers. Don’t you think that this action of the special investigation body is not only enough but is late after the events of March 1? Because the policemen who used special means are not accused in the crime yet.
– Of course I think that it is late and I am not sufficed with the work of the low-enforcement bodies. If there have not been results so far it means that they are lacking professionalism. But it is better late than never. It would be better if they did it in time, but if they failed to do so, they have to do it now. The malformation in the professionalism of the law-enforcement bodies or one failure in fact does not change anything.
– Do you think it was right to arrest Nicol Pashinyan in case when the PACE petitioned the government not to arrest the people who were under search if they surrendered voluntarily?
– It would be good if the government respected the petition of the PACE. It is not obligatory that they do what they are petitioned to do. It may be possible that they can’t do what they are petitioned to do, however in such case they should bring reasonable explanations. As for Nicol, I don’t agree with their explanations because I think that if this person surrendered voluntarily and there is a resolution issued by the PACE, this man should be mad to escape again.
– What do you think about the parliament’s decision, according to which the journalists have limited access to the parliament? The parliament has not limited the access of journalists to the building of the parliament so far.
– I haven’t examined that decision yet. However there is no limitation during legal and organizational events in the parliament, there may be limitations if there are specific events. In other countries there are some limitations in their parliaments as well. It is hard to assume that it is limitation of the journalists’ activities. From this point of view the previous regime did not make any problems for journalists and I think journalists should be free in their professional activities. They should be free to interact with public. If they want to become public persons, i.e. MP, minister, ombudsman, they should understand that journalists can cover their life and activities. I wish the other institutions could take the example of the parliament and be open as well, but not the vice versa.