RA OMBUDSPERSON’S POSITION ON SITUATION FORMED IN COUNTRY

Noyan Tapan
March 5, 2008

YEREVAN, MARCH 5, NOYAN TAPAN. RA Ombudsperson Armen Haroutiunian
on March 3 made a statement presenting his position on the situation
formed in the country. The statement provided to Noyan Tapan by the
Information and Public Relations Department of the RA Ombudsperson’s
Staff read:

"1. As far back as during the election campaign, the public activity
of different political forces resulted in formation of an atmosphere
of intolerance in society. The appeals of authoritative international
organizations, as well as the Ombudsperson, unfortunately, received no
response. Moreover, the atmosphere of intolerance turned into mutual
hatred after the March 1 tragic events.

2. The March 1 events started from forcible stopping of the peaceful
sit-down strike in Liberty Square. According to the official approach,
there was accumulation of arms in Liberty Square, and the Policemen
only made an attempt to conduct a search and received a violent
resistance.

The Ombudsperson considers that the authorities should answer some
questions. In particular, who, when, and under what circumstances
made a decision to obligatorily stop the peaceful sit-down strike
with use of force early in the morning of March 1, whether a public
claim of conducting a search was made to the participants of the
sit-down strike and whether the citizens refused or made resistance,
whether the use of force was adequate to the formed situation.

The above mentioned questions are conditioned by the statement of
the demonstrants that early in the morning, without warning, they
were attacked and beaten cruelly. For us, it is difficult to disclose
the situation, but one question remains without answer. Why did the
Police hinder implementation of journalists’ professional activity,
which would give a possibility to receive complete and unbiassed
information? The Yerkir Media and ALM TV companies have officially
stated that the Police hindered their journalist activity.

3. The people, who had gathered near the Embassy of France are part of
out society, they are not bandits and robbers, but RA citizens, who
in their opinion, have undergone illegal violence by law enforcement
bodies.

The Police proposed organizing a procession and holding a rally near
Matenadaran. Why the people, who could guide the demonstrants, did
not do it, but at the last moment stated that the demonstrants do
not obey them?

Lastly, what was the reason of demonstrants’ disagreement both
with the law enforcement bodies and the representatives of Levon
Ter-Petrosian’s headquarters? Maybe the reason of it were the events
that happened in the very morning. Perhaps the consequence of that
disagreement was that many peoples were injured and eight people died.

The Ombudsperson presents his deep condolences to the relatives of
the victims.

4. At present the activity of some media, especially TV companies,
aimed at aggravation of the atmosphere of hatred, causes at least
bewilderment. In particular, statements of power representatives are
constantly voiced by the TV companies on calling for liability those
guilty for the March 1 events among exclusively the demonstrants
and punishing them. Why the issue of possible illegal actions by law
enforcement bodies and calling them for liability is not discussed?

5. A number of limitations of man’s and citizen’s constitutional rights
in the city of Yerevan have been established by the RA President’s
01.03.2008 decree On Announcing State of Emergency.

Thus, according to subpoint 4 of point 4 of the decree, mass media can
present publications on state and home political issues only within
the limits of state bodies’ official information. While according to
the information received by the Ombudsperson, the activity of the A1+,
Lragir information websites has been stopped. In this connection the
head of the National Security Service has informed the Ombudsperson
that the reason of undertaking such an extreme measure was that
the providers of the respective information websites are outside
the country. The latters, according to the data reported by the
head of the National Security Service, had been warned about the
limitations envisaged by the President’s decree, but refused to keep
them motivating this by the circumstance that they are under the
legislation of their own state.

According to subpoint 3 of point 4 of the RA President’s above
mentioned decree, law enforcement bodies have the right to limit
movement and to carry out examination of people and transport means
if necessary. The application-complaints received by the Ombudsperson
are evidence that in consequence of giving a territorial commentary
to the quotted provision, in particular, citizens’ right of entering
Yerevan is disproportionately limited.

Besides, reports are received by the Ombudsperson’s office on facts
of mass arrests of citizens and bringing them to police stations,
which according to the applicants, is accompanied by violation of
criminal-judicial norms. In connection with this issue the Ombudsperson
had a telephone conversation with the RA Prosecutor General, who
expressed readiness to introduce the list of all arrested people to
the Ombudsperson’s office.

Nevertheless, some representatives of law enforcement bodies put
obstacles in the way of Ombudsperson’s implementing the authorities
reserved for him.

Thus, such a case happened in the Kanaker-Zeytun station of the RA
Police Yerevan department.

6. In our opinion, the formed situation is conditioned by a strict
government system, supercentralization of the power, formal character
of counterbalances, social and economic polarization, merging of
business and power, lack of society’s control over power, the civil
freedoms’ being incomplete. Therefore, this is the situation, in
connection with which I as an Ombudsperson have repeatedly said:
we have system problems from point of view of protection of human
rights. All this has resulted in the situation when a large part of
society feels alienated from the authorities, has total distrust in
public institutions, electoral mechanisms, justice, and media.

Part of political forces made an attempt to make advantage of the
formed situation and to use it for their narrow political interests
taking the way of not dialogue, but confrontation. In the formed
situation, certainly, the authorities also have their share of guilt.

There are two ways of solving this situation, non-legal, deadlock, and
legal. The deadlock will be if the political field is deserted and an
atmosphere of total fear is formed. The other way is indeed to take as
a basis mechanisms of democracy, to take as a cornerstone human rights
as the supreme value, and to take the way of dialogue and cooperation.

It is reassuring that the newly elected President has chosen the
very way.

It shows that the newly formed power tries to follow the legal
way. It is characteristic that a proposal of cooperation is made by
a political leader, the political force led by which has majority in
the National Assembly.

I am convinced that even in this situation the possibilities of
dialogue and peaceful political settlement of the problem have not
been exhausted yet."