THE WILL OF OFFICE OF PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND THE LAW
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir
Jan 24 2008
Armenia

A special working group has been set up within the Office of Prosecutor
General of Armenia which will investigate breaches in the presidential
election, and the office of prosecutor general stated through the
deputy prosecutor general Aram Tamazyan on January 23 to punish
wrongdoers. This is a sensation because part of the society might think
that the office of the prosecutor general may encourage election fraud
and generally wrongdoers. Logic, as well as the Armenian legislation
prompt that the office of prosecutor general is meant to reveal and
bring charges against wrongdoers. Therefore, the statement about
punishing wrongdoers in the election is meaningless and useless,
and is mere pretension to assure there is determination to hold a
fair election. Otherwise, it turns out that the office of prosecutor
general could have not punished but has decided to punish.

In other words, it is the will of the office of prosecutor general
rather than the law.

On the other hand, however, the fact of deviation from logic is
typical of Armenia because we know that the office of prosecutor
general, as well as any other government agency in Armenia sticks to
their will rather than the letter of the law. The law says one thing,
the government wants another thing. In this context, the statement of
the office of prosecutor general acquires logic. In other words, they
warn the wrongdoers that this time election fraud will be punished.

They want so. However, both wrongdoers and the society have every
reason to disbelieve the office of prosecutor general. One of the
first reasons is that the Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepyan is a
stakeholder in the presidential election, because the Nig-Aparan Union
of Compatriots, the honorary president of which is Aghvan Hovsepyan,
has stated to support Serge Sargsyan. Consequently, this interest
may affect the work of the agency led by Aghvan Hovsepyan.

Therefore, the office of prosecutor general is not entitled to
politics, although the law does not bar the unions of compatriots
from politics.

However, there is one more circumstance which causes doubt about the
determination of the office of prosecutor general to punish election
fraud. Evidence is the response of the office of prosecutor general
to reports of irregularities in the election process. The office of
prosecutor general says the reports are too general and there are
no facts. This answer is unique. If definite facts are offered to
the office of prosecutor general, what is the job of the office of
prosecutor general then? After all, the office of prosecutor general
not only prosecutes but also reveals the wrongdoers. If a murder
takes place, and the murderer is not known, does it mean the office
of prosecutor general will not investigate the case to reveal the
murderer? Or if a robbery is reported, will the office of prosecutor
general investigate only in case it learns the names of the robbers?

Hence, the society has considerable reason not to believe the
honesty of the office of prosecutor general. However, even if
these suppositions or perceptions are subjective, the fact that
the office prosecutor general has not punished the wrongdoers of
the previous elections from the parliamentary election of 1995 to
the parliamentary election of 2007 and has not revealed the obvious
and hidden illegalities except for some scapegoats allows stating
confidently that the threat of the office of prosecutor general to
punish election fraud is like the threat of the wolf in the cartoon
"Bunny, do you hear me?" and the bunny’s answer "I do!"