AS LONG AS THE COURT PROCEEDING IS IN PROCESS
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
27 Nov 08
Armenia
It is early to make any assessment
As we know, CoE Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg
expressed rather tough assessments on the inquest and trial of the
"March 1" case, calling into question not only the professionalism of
the judicial bodies but also the resource of trust in the NA interim
committee investigating the circumstances of the mass disorders.
In response to our questions, ARTASHES SHAHBAZYAN, Secretary of the
ARFD parliamentary faction and member of the interim parliamentary
committee, refrained from making "any accusations in return" and
at the same time, pointed out that he had some reservations about
the Commissioner’s prejudiced statement. Below we present the
considerations of the Deputy.
"How is it possible to make any assessment on or speak about the
pressures against the MPs, if the examination of the cases is in
process; they haven’t been brought to the court, and the court hasn’t
made any decision yet. For instance, in some cases, the representatives
of the opposition use pressure against a witness. There have even
been cases of moral pressure when the witnesses were asked to change
the contents of their testimony. And by the way, some witnesses did
renounce their testimonies in the court later.
Or, they say that20the arrested political figures should be
released. In this case too, I think that it’s still early to make
any assessments or speak about the release of the 7 political figures
because the verdicts haven’t yet been returned.
There have been mass disorders, and there are people accused of a
grave crime, i.e. attempting to usurp power. I don’t want to violate
the principle of the presumption of innocence and say that they did
really make that step. I wish those accusations weren’t confirmed, and
those people, including our colleagues, were released after the court
hearing. But considering such a grave accusation, it is impossible
to demand that the case be dismissed and the ‘political prisoners’
be released. This approach is unconceivable to me."
"What accounts for the European official’s negative attitude towards
the interim committee? Mr. Hammarberg actually expressed distrust to
the committee by saying that the ‘impartial’ work of the fact-finding
group was the only chance for disclosing the ‘March 1’ disorders."
"I have to agree with Samvel Nikoyan, Head of the Committee, and say
that there is probably some moral pressure against Mr. Hammarberg. What
I don’t understand is why the honorable Commissioner reiterates the
opposition’s viewpoint that the committee cannot be trusted because
the opposition does not participate in its ac tivities.
The committee did invite those people to participate in its
activities. But if they refuse to attend our sessions or provide
us with any facts (if, they of course, they have facts at all), if
they won’t answer our questions in conditions of absolute publicity,
what makes Mr. Hammarberg decide that the committee does not inspire
confidence.
What is it that doesn’t inspire confidence? Which part of the
activities doesn’t inspire confidence when we assume the function
of defense lawyers and go to the court to thoroughly study the
publications of the press and raise all the issues advanced by the
opposition; when we invite the responsible representatives of the
law enforcement agencies and pose those questions to them?"
"Could Mr. Hammarberg have thoroughly familiarized himself with the
inquest materials and the course of the proceedings within a couple
of hours so as to consider himself entitled to accuse the inquest
body and courts of ‘non-professionalism’?"
"I don’t think he could have. Regrettable though it is, I do really
see some prejudiced disposition about all this. When the verdicts
are returned, we will consider them and draw final conclusions. It’s
quite possible that we will find certain problems with regard to the
activities of the authorities.
You have probably noticed that we have certain reservations to the
activities of the l aw enforcement agencies, and we want to listen
to everybody and disclose the truth. I don’t want to be populistic
and run ahead of time by speaking about pardoning the detainees,
but we will introduce our proposals in future.
If it is proven tomorrow that certain court decisions were made on
political motives, that will be quite a different thing. For the
sake of the truth, it is necessary to mention that the Criminal Code
contains some articles which have political shadings, and in the course
of time, it will be necessary to touch upon them. After the trials, it
will be necessary to touch upon the cases of the people convicted under
those articles, look upon the indictments and verdicts and see whether
that factor did not play any role in making the court decisions.
But I don’t think it is right to use such indirect pressure against
the justice system and finally – the state."
"If we guide ourselves with the presumption that the criminal cases
against the radicals were filed with political considerations,
we will have to admit that there were no organizers, and nobody is
responsible for what happened, and the people really gathered near
the statue of Myasnikyan spontaneously; they threw grenades at the
policemen, set the cars on fire and looted the shops in a spontaneous
manner. Do you think this hypothesis reasonable?"
"Obviously, the leaders of the demonstrations pa rticipated in the
events; they were on the Theatrical Square and near the statue
of Myasnikyan. I don’t want to say that they led the illegal
operations. The problem here is to find out to what extent their
statements and actions pushed the people to illegal action and after
all, to what extent they were involved in all those activities.
But for the time being, I will refrain from making such
assessments. The final assessment is to be made by the court which
should study all the circumstances, particularly those concerning
the case of the seven individuals."