PRESS RELEASE
The National Citizens’ Initiative
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 375033, Armenia
Tel.: (+374 – 10) 27.16.00, 27.00.03
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
August 24, 2005
National Citizens’ Initiative Starts Examining Violation of Property Rights
in Armenia
Yerevan–The National Citizens’ Initiative (NCI) today convened the first of
its roundtable series on “Human Rights, State and Communal Necessities.” The
meeting brought together policy makers, lawyers, jurists, analysts, experts,
media representatives, and some former residents of Yerevan’s Kentron
district whose ownership rights have been breached while implementing
Yerevan’s construction investment plan.
NCI coordinator Hovsep Khurshudian welcomed the audience with opening
remarks and wished the participants fruitful work, while stressing this
matter’s importance for the Armenian society and the state. “The institution
of a market economy in Armenia is unimaginable without property rights. It
is impossible to build democracy without human rights, including the
recognition, respect, and defense of ownership privileges. Consequently,
when the possessions of the citizen of the Republic of Armenia is being
alienated, that must occur exclusively within the frameworks of honoring
human rights, the laws of the Republic of Armenia, and international
approaches and norms. Our task today is to examine the legality and grounds
for the property alienation of hundreds of families previously living in
downtown Yerevan. From that vantage point, by taking into account the
fortune threatening Kond, the area near the wine factory and other
neighborhoods, and the similar procedures that have gotten underway in
different communities of Yerevan, in the city of Vanadzor and elsewhere, the
alienation of the estates of former dwellers of Lalayants, Pushkin, Buzand,
Aram, and other streets, therefore, is not the final serious test for us
all,” Khurshudian said.
The opening remarks were followed by NCI’s 10-minute “no comment” video
clip, which aims to apprise the public roundtable participants of the
essence of the problem, from the infringements upon ownership rights to
protests and public operations for the protection of personal rights, all of
which have been met with either the authorities’ silence and apathy, or
insufficient answers.
And in order to obtain explanations for the unanswered questions,
representatives from the corresponding authoritative bodies were also
invited to the event. The first roundtable on alienation of property started
with a policy intervention by Armen Tadevosian, a specialist from the staff
of Armenia’s ombudswoman. According to him, the human rights defender’s
office is dealing with this matter for a long time now. In the department’s
2004 report, there is an expansive reference made to the violation of the
rights of former residents of those areas in the Kentron community that have
been declared construction zones. In the words of Tadevosian, Armenia’s
ombudswoman has made attempts to get explanations from related structures.
In the face of the authorities’ harsh resistance, however, these efforts
were sometimes unproductive. Armen Tadevosian even recalled the time when
the president of Armenia had appealed to the Constitutional Court, whereupon
the defender of human rights was accused of intervening in the rule of law
and meddling in the affairs of jurisprudence. Despite all these, the
evaluation by the ombudswoman’s office is that what has taken place and that
which is occurring now is “a blatant violation of our citizens’ ownership
and other economic rights” and that “the City Hall is not taking into
consideration the rights of the land user or the proprietor.” Tadevosian
noted that “in the case when there is no adopted law on real estate that is
included in the alienation belt of Yerevan’s construction projects, when the
owners do not agree with alienation, then the government of the Republic of
Armenia is not empowered to adopt such resolutions.” He also declared that
the ombudswoman’s office has exhausted all measures toward the protection of
human rights, and that it would come out with an extraordinary report that
would call on the people to petition the MPs in their constituencies, and
encourage them to join the National Assembly’s signature campaign. Perhaps
in this way, it might be possible to make the Constitutional Court take up
the matter.
Vice-chair of the “Bureau for the Carrying out of Yerevan’s Construction
Investment Plans” state organization Samvel Papikian and the specialist from
the same office, Gagik Martirosian, pointed out that the alienation of
people’s property in the name of state needs is taking place legitimately,
and that it is based on the government’s resolution #950, adopted on October
5, 2001, which relates to “the confirmation of the order for the purchase,
offering a purchase price, and usage of land and real estate located in
Yerevan’s Northern Avenue and other alienation belts of the city of
Yerevan,” and decision #909, reached on June 17, 2004, which relates to
“allocating unauctioned land for the purpose of implementing construction
investment plans in the areas acquired for state necessities, in order to
engage in urban development projects in the main avenue of the city of
Yerevan.” According to Papikian and Martirosian, “the government itself has
defined state needs and the zones for usage, and the agency is bringing
those decisions to life.”
As mentioned by the lawyers, jurists, and legal advocates participating in
the roundtable, the purchase and acquisition of land and real estate in this
territory were accompanied by severe violations. First, Article 8 of the
Republic of Armenia’s Constitution stipulates that “the right to property is
recognized and protected in the Republic of Armenia,” and then, in
accordance with Article 28, “the owner may be deprived of private property
only by a court in cases prescribed by law. Private property may be
alienated for the needs of society and the state only under exceptional
circumstances, with due process of law, and with prior equivalent
compensation.” The state has not verified in any way as to how allowing
private companies the opportunity to make investment proposals and to gain
profits from newly-built structures is linked with state necessity. What are
“state needs?” How exceptional are the property alienation cases? Why is the
person being compelled to “vacate his own home?” Why is he being obliged to
“conform” to the contract’s content and sum of the compensation, etc.? None
of these is defined. Both the lawyers and residents agree that the
compensation amount does not correspond to the value of the property.
Accordingly, it cannot satisfy the proprietor, especially when the allocated
compensation cannot cover the cost of an apartment in similar or even worse
condition in the same area. This procedure also conflicts with Section 1 of
the 1st Protocol of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Basic Freedoms, which requires consideration of the right of property.
The next two policy interventions referred to the legal defense of ownership
rights. Member of Armenia’s Barristers’ Union Arthur Grigorian talked about
“the upholding of the standards for fair trial ‘in the cases of alienating
the property of citizens for state needs.'” The lawyer who has taken part in
numerous hearings in that respect maintained that the legal breaches were
blatant and many.
In his turn, director of the legal firm “Right,” Vahe Grigorian, pointed out
many violations of the right for legal protection, which he and his clients
had confronted during the court defense of property rights. “The affixation
of property alienation under exceptional cases in the Constitution perhaps
is not enough to dispossess the person from that right. The citizen’s
consent is very important,” Grigorian noted.
The two men also underscored that when it comes to protecting transgressed
rights, the courts’ dependency on Armenia’s executive authority has become a
very serious issue. Numerous residents have already exhausted the internal
avenues of court defense, and a number of cases now have been forwarded to
the European Court of Human Rights. They further added that at the court,
the representatives of the authorities are not able to point to a state need
that validates the people’s deprivation of their belongings en masse. And
from the very beginning, there was not even a construction plan or any
architectural document prior to this procedure. Vice-chair of the “Bureau
for the Carrying out of Yerevan’s Construction Investment Plans” state
organization Samvel Papikian and the specialist from the same office Gagik
Martirosian mentioned that there was a blueprint.
During the debates, it became apparent that one of the painful issues in
this process was tied to the understanding of the precept of “with due
process of law” that the society and legal advocates retain on the one hand,
and the state maintains on the other. Since they are deprived of the
opportunity to appeal to the Constitutional Court for the violation of their
constitutional rights, Armenia’s citizens are also dispossessed of the
chance to dispute the government’s resolutions in court. Consequently, the
resolution of this matter meets an impasse, and remains hanging on either
the National Assembly, the President, or the political will and wishes of
the government itself. For now, however, this is lacking.
NCI coordinator Hovsep Khurshudian stated that extensive infringement upon
property rights have made the preparation of the summary report an urgent
matter. “In the upcoming months, the NCI will come up with a tri-lingual
review, which will be presented for public attention and discussion during
one of the following roundtables,” Khurshudian furthermore informed.
The remainder of the session was devoted to exchanges of views and policy
recommendations among the public figures and policy specialists in
attendance. Noteworthy were interventions by MP Vardan Mkrtchian; Armenian
Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) research coordinator
Stiopa Safarian; Ruzan Khachatrian of the People’s Party; Edgar Hakobian of
the “Heritage” Party; NCI legal advisor Lusine Shahmuradian; “Institute of
Culture and National Values” NGO chairwoman Armine Gasparian; a number of
specialists from the Armenian ombudswoman’s staff; head of the “Victims of
State Needs” civil initiative Vachakan Hakobian and a group of former
residents of the Buzand, Lalayants, Aram, and Pushkin streets who are
members; and many others.
The National Citizens’ Initiative is a public non-profit association founded
in December 2001 by Raffi K. Hovannisian, his colleagues, and fellow
citizens with the purpose of realizing the rule of law and overall
improvements in the state of the state, society, and public institutions.
The National Citizens’ Initiative is guided by a Coordinating Council, which
includes individual citizens and representatives of various public,
scientific, and educational establishments. Five commissions on Law and
State Administration, Socioeconomic Issues, Foreign Policy, Spiritual and
Cultural Challenges, and the Youth constitute the vehicles for the
Initiative’s work and outreach.
For further information, please call (37410) 27-16-00 or 27-00-03; fax
(37410) 52-48-46; e-mail [email protected]; or visit