Armenianow.com
July 9, 2004
Patterns of the Past?: Are there political prisoners in today’s Armenia?
By Vahan Ishkhanyan ArmeniaNow reporter
Recent arrests of political oppositionists in Armenia have prompted
activists and human rights advocates to draw parallels between the latest
government crackdown and communist-era oppression.
Beginning in February, and officially ending two weeks ago, oppositional
parties held rallies in Yerevan, calling for the resignation of President
Robert Kocharyan, on grounds that he had “stolen” last year’s election and
that his presidency is “illegitimate”.
Suren Surenyants
During the period, some 240 oppositional sympathizers were arrested on
various charges and placed under “administrative arrests”. But 14 party
members, including leaders, were charged with more serious crimes, including
advocating overthrowing the government. Though most have since been released
(often after signing statements of remorse), one regional party head,
Lavrenti Kirakosyan, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for drug
possession, under what appears to be trumped-up charges based on planted
evidence.
While law enforcement authorities call the bulk of charges civil
disobedience, veteran civil rights advocates say the arrests are a throwback
to days when anti-Sovietism could land a person in prison for up to 10
years.
“No countries, neither Northern Korea nor China admit the fact that they
have political prisoners,” says human right activist Vardan Harutyunyan, who
was a political prisoner during Soviet times. “In all those countries
political prisoners are tried in accordance with the criminal code. The
democratic world and non-governmental organizations judge whether a convict
is political or not.”
The Soviet Criminal Code contained legislation with political subtexts that
made it convenient for charging dissidents as criminals. The notorious
Paragraph 65 on anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation was used to imprison 95
Armenians between the 1960s and independence, in 1991.
When Armenia became independent, Paragraph 65 was changed and instead of
accusations of anti-Soviet activities the law enforced against “calls for
forced overturn or change of state and public order of Armenia”. In 1995
today’s deputies of the National Assembly and members of Dashnak party Vahan
Hovhannisyan and Armen Rustamyan were sentenced under the revised paragraph
and served three years of longer sentences before being released when Levon
Ter Petrossyan resigned in 1998.
In the Civil Code adopted last year, Paragraph 65 turned into Paragraph 301
and the punishment provided for by the paragraph was mitigated. Now,
conviction on charges of anti-government activity range from fines, to
three-year sentences.
In April, three oppositional representatives were arrested for making calls
to change and overturn state order. They were kept in prison for two months
and then set free.
Vardan Harutyunyan
Head of the Informational Department of the Republic party, political
secretary Suren Surenyants was the first arrested. He was accused of
inflammatory speech during a February 28 rally in the Shengavit Community of
Yerevan on the day commemorating the pogroms of Sumgait, Azerbaijan.
For saying “We must do everything so that the earth would burn under this
regime’s feet”, he was convicted of instigating an overthrow of power. And
for saying “With their acts of violence Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan
don’t differ from Azeri hooligans” he was found guilty of insulting state
authorities.
One of the party leaders, Vagharshak Harutyunyan held no speeches, however,
he was also accused of making calls to seize state power by force.
A member of the President’s Administration for Protection of Human Rights,
Zhora Khachatryan, says the charges against Surenyants were subjective,
while he found no basis at all for Harutyunyan’s arrest.
“It is a question of judging Suren’s speech. Was it an insult or not?” says
jurist Zhora Khachatryan. “He made such expressions, which can be
interpreted in every way. My opinion is that his speech contains insults and
calls for overturning the power. People must be decent in conversation.”
Khachatryan believes it is necessary to preserve Paragraph 301, however, he
believes that speculations and the fact that all speeches are regarded as
calls for overturn of power should be condemned.
Vardan Harutyunyan also believes that calls for a change of power by force
should be condemned, however, he says none of the arrested made such calls,
including Surenyants.
“During oppositional rallies nobody said that power must be overturned by
force. There is nothing like that in Surenyants’ speech as well,”
Harutyunyan says. “There were only calls to change the power but it is a
constitutional right and it is not a crime.”
Surenyants says he would never have been released, had he not signed a
document of repentance.
“My health was bad. I had heart seizures and my eye pressure was
increasing,” he says. “(Presidential Ombudsman) Larisa Alaverdyan’s action
also played an important role. However, those two factor would mean nothing
if the repentance clause (of the Paragraph) was not applied to me.”
He says he signed document of repentance only for getting out of prison and
in reality he doesn’t repent of what he had done and he will continue the
political struggle.
“When a country is independent, then one should not be in prison under the
rule of the bad regime but one should change that bad regime,” he explained
in his statement.
In the case of Kirakosyan (a leader of the National Democratic Union), human
rights activists are saying that he is in fact a political prisoner, because
his arrest was politically motivated.
Jurist Khachatryan, who was present at Kirakosyan’s trial, says there are
numerous illegalities in the case, including a lack of cause for the search
that turned up 59 grams of marijuana in Kirakosyan’s home.
He doesn’t think, however, that Kirakosyan is a political prisoner.
According to Khachatryan, Kirakosyan became a victim of defects in the
judicial system.
“If a criminal case enters the court, then verdict of ‘guilty’ should
necessarily be rendered,” Kirakosyan says. “The court avoids rendering
verdicts of ‘not guilty’ as in that case defects of the work conducted by
(state) bodies in charge of preliminary investigations will become apparent.
Zhora Khachatryan
“Even in this case the court doesn’t carry out the order of authorities,
rather, it functions in accordance with the established order. If the
Prosecutor’s Office presented a case then a verdict of ‘guilty’ must be
necessarily rendered. For now we still have no just courts.”
Vardan Harutyunyan sees reflections of past regimes in cases such as
Kirakosyan’s.
“I can bring numerous examples from the Soviet Union times when dissidents
were accused of rape, hooliganism and drug use. The paragraph means
nothing,” he says. “The real reasons must be detected. And the real reason
of trying Lavrenty is political.”
In 1980, together with his four associates Vardan Harutyunyan created Union
of Armenian Youth, whose goal was the independence of Armenia. Members of
that organization were spreading prohibited literature. One year later they
were arrested and convicted. Only Harutyunyan was accused and sentenced
under Paragraph 65 – anti-Soviet agitation. The other three were sentenced
not only under Paragraph 65, but also under other paragraphs of the criminal
code.
“I was in the army when they detained me. If I were in Yerevan they would
fabricate additional cases for me,” he says.
The head of the organization, the late Marzpet Harutyunyan, was, like
Kirakosyan, accused of dealing drugs.
Vardan Harutyunyan, now 43, recalls the sentencing:
“It was determined that Marzpet doesn’t use drugs, but deals them,”
Harutyunuan remembers the judge saying. “You think about your health but for
poisoning young men you spread drugs.”
To which, according to Harutyunyan, Marzpet answered: “Judge, if I had
wished to poison young men then I would have spread Marxism.”
Another member of the group Samvel Yeghiazaryan was accused of acts of
hooliganism, which he says he never committed.
“One day the head of the district came and said ‘come with me we have things
to do’,” recalls 46-year-old Yeghiazaryan. “Together with him we went to the
police station. A policeman told me that I had committed acts of
hooliganism, that I had been cursing women passing by in the street next to
‘Aquarium’ restaurant. I thought it was a mistake, misunderstanding. I swore
I had never done something like that. I said can you bring witnesses and
they said it is not accepted that women give testimonies.”
One of the groups’ members, Ishkhan Lazarian was killed in prison in 1985
while serving his sentence for resisting arrest and for violations of
Paragraph 65. A fifth member was set free after signing a document of
remorse during the trial.
Vardan Harutyunyan, who spent eight years in prison, says spending time in
prison was a part of their struggle.
“Of course, there is a great difference between today’s Armenia and Soviet
Armenia. Those days any kind of public or political activities was
prohibited,” says Vardan Harutyunyan. “Simply today people with Soviet
mentality came to power. Their methods are the same but their possibilities
are limited as the world has changed. They cannot fully bring to life their
ideas, however, in some measure they do that – they forbid mass meetings and
execute arrests. “