THE BARTER OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
KIMA YEGHIAZARYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
04 Oct 2008
Armenia
An Extremely Absurd Statement
As we know, the main issues discussed during the session of the PACE
Monitoring Committee concerned the recent report submitted by CoE
Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg and the process of
Armenia’s implementation of Resolutions # 1609 and 1620. After
finishing the activities of the session, the Monitoring Committee
yesterday made its statement.
There was such an impression that the Committee would try to `keep
balance’ while preparing its statement and include in it the two topics
discussed. However, choosing the `optimum’ methods, it leaned
exclusively on Thomas Hammarberg’s report which, at the same, absorbed
the second topic. That statement, as a matter of fact, is the brief
composition of the conclusion concerning the March 1-2 events.
So, leaning on Mr. Hammarberg’s report and applying it to our country’s
general commitments to the Council of Europe, the Committee has made
such a mess that one hardly make out what the principal requirements of
the Assembly are.
As far as we remember, Resolutions # 1609 and 1620 contain countless
clauses concerning democracy and human rights in general, as well as
reminding about the implementation of the successive stages of the
activities required for achieving the solution20of numerous problems.
They also contain appeals addressed both to the opposition and the
authorities, particularly on the necessity of initiating a dialogue.
Whereas, circumventing these issues and focusing only on the
individuals detained within the frameworks of the `March 1′ case, the
Monitoring Committee expressed concerns over the facts and conclusions
publicized in the Commissioner’s report, as they `show only limited
progress in terms of implementation of the Assembly’s key
requirements.’ And if they hadn’t observed the `positive steps towards
conducting an independent and reliable investigation’, they might not
have recorded any progress at all.
We should note once again that all these statements are made in the
context of evaluating the process of the implementation of Resolutions
# 1609 and 1620. However, judging by the general contents of the
statement, there actually remains only one commitment we are required
to comply with.
That is, to release the `political detainees’ and dismiss the cases.
Furthermore, the Committee does not even conceal the fact that it is
ready to close eyes to all the imperfections if the authorities display
tolerance towards the revolutionaries and release them from prison. In
that case, the committee will record an `important progress’ and will
probably discontinue the monitoring process.
Expressing regret that the Arme
nian authorities haven’t considered the
possibilities for granting the detainees amnesty or pardon or applying
other legal procedures for solving the problems of the individuals
detained within the frameworks of the `March 1′ case, `the Committee
appeals to the authorities to discuss such possibility, as this will
lead to a significant progress in the process of the implementation of
the Assembly’s requirements.’
Well, just imagine what `barter’ the Monitoring Committee proposes:
recording a high level of democracy in our country in return for the
release of the individuals who organized and participated in mass
disorders accompanied with murders. And we, for some reason, imagined
the process of the accomplishment of democracy in a different way.
Whereas it turns out that for being considered a state complying with
democratic standards it is just necessary to allow the authorities to
create a chaotic situation in the country, and then exempt the authors
of such mass disorders from liability. Otherwise, they will have to
hear the pro-democratic organizations and individuals say all the time
that they are `strictly anxious’ and `deeply’ and `extremely’
concerned. And at the end, they will threaten the country with
sanctions, as mentioned in the statement of the Monitoring Committee.
Sometimes you ask yourself the following question: when these people
visit=2
0Armenia, why do they waste time on meeting with the
representatives of the ruling coalition, the Prosecutor General or the
leader of the country? It isn’t as though all that didn’t make sense.
Returning to Strasburg, they set aside all the argumentations achieved
during these meetings and lean only on the facts and data submitted by
the centre of the Ter-Petrosyan-led movement. Both Mr. Hammarberg’s
report and the statement of the Monitoring Committee are full of such
facts and data.
And what does the Armenian delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe do? To what extent does it try to prevent such
kind of unfavorable reports and statements from being published? Or,
does it take any steps towards changing the disputable issues contained
in those papers? These are questions that need to be considered
properly.