INTERVIEW WITH DAVID HARUTYUNYAN
arminfo
2008-04-17 14:10:00
Interviewed by Oksana Musaelyan
ArmInfo,Strasbourg, April 15, 2008. The PACE resolution Â"On operation
of democratic institutions in Armenia" by Rapporteur for election
in Armenia John Prescott and Co-Rapporteur for Armenia’s accession
commitments to the Council of Europe George Colombier will be discussed
during a sitting in PACE on April 17. To note, this issue was included
in the session’s agenda as a result of the proposal made on April
14, the first day of the session, to hold extraordinary hearings on
this issue. In case the resolution is adopted, PACE members intend
to hold debates on implementation of the proposed recommendations and
assessment of Armenia’s progress during the summer session of PACE. If
the situation is unsatisfactory, the issue of temporary suspension
of the mandate of the Armenian delegation to PACE may arise. Head of
the Armenian delegation to PACE, Chairman of the Armenian National
Assembly’s Standing Commission on Legal Issues David Harutyunyan said
about possible developments in PACE in his interview.
How important is the adoption of the resolution on operation of
democratic institutions in Armenia, which will be discussed at the
PACE sitting on April 17?
The resolution is crucial for Armenia from the viewpoint of
developments in Armenia and the country’s compliance with the CoE
standards.
What issues will the document cover? Will it touch upon the
post-election situation in Armenia?
First and foremost, it is the post-election situation in Armenia. The
document is not focused on the election itself, but covers a wide
spectrum of problems related to the work of democratic institutions
in Armenia: from the status of mass media to the independence of the
judiciary system.
What facts are the document’s authors going to appeal to?
Usually it is a political assessment. Sometimes we think that the
authors of documents discussed at the CoE must adduce some proofs,
but actually, such documents are just political assessments by the
people assigned by the CoE or the CoE Committee of Ministers to prepare
them. Often the CoE’s position is based on their political assessments.
Taking into account the fact that the co-author of the present report
is John Prescott, who connected the reason of the post-election events
with the lack of public confidence in the electoral process in his
previous report on presidential election observation, can one expect
that the present document itself will have no tough formulations?
Harutyunyan: I don’t think that the report will be soft. That is,
it is not soft. As for the reasons, the document states that the
factor of the lack of public confidence in electoral processes is
rather the society’s problem than the reason of the events over the
post-election period in Yerevan.
Therefore, this should urgently be taken into account to reconsider the
policy in the country. This is not a cause-and-effect relation, this
is a problem faced by the country, i.e. to liquidate the inconfidence
of a part of the society in electoral institutions.
How does PACE determine the degree of the authorities’ responsibility
in the matter of the lack of public confidence? How much does this
factor clearly point at the authorities’ fault and fail to take into
account the general reasons?
This issue cannot be unambiguous, this is a matter of purely political
assessment. It stands to reason that when the issue of responsibility
arises, the authorities’ responsibility is always considered.
What measures is the Armenian delegation going to take to prevent
the adoption of the resolution?
I don’t think that our task is to prevent the adoption of the
resolution.
This is a wrong approach. We think that the resolution should be
unbiased as it may become an efficient tool to achieve the goals of
not only and not so much of the Council of Europe but the goals of
the Republic of Armenia.
The necessity of independent investigation of the post-election events
was much spoken about during the sittings of the PACE session. Are
there any specific initiatives and persons from the CoE who may be
involved in the process?
There is such a proposal though the CoE shows quite controversial
attitude to this, as it will obviously be quite an ineffective
mechanism. Yes, it is necessary to carry out independent
investigation. Yes, it is possible to involve international experts in
it. But this does not mean that the investigation should be carried out
at an international level. It should be carried out by an institution
enjoying the highest confidence in Armenia, and I don’t think that
this institution should be located outside the country.
Would you clarify the situation with the work of the PACE Ad Hoc
Committee on Nagorno-Karabakh? Why have the meetings of the Armenian
and Azerbaijani delegations been suspended within the frames of
sessions?
At the moment we have no new details to tell you.
Is Lord Russell-Johnston’s statement that the parties gave their
consent to a joint meeting true?
Actually, it is. We have always been willing to hold such meetings. I
think that at the moment the meeting is impossible for technical
reasons: today we face other priority tasks at the PACE session, in
any case, we tackle these issues during this session. I admit that
the meeting will be held within the frames of this session, however,
it is scarcely probable. The meeting is most likely to take place
during the interval between this session and the following one.
How effective is the Committee’s work?
The Committee doesn’t settle the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Its task is
to establish ties between both countries’ parliamentarians, exchange
opinions and find common positions.
How much efficiently does the Committee implement this task?
At the moment, I cannot consider that the Committee’s work has brought
specific results, nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that the work should
be suspended.
Thanks for the interview
–Boundary_(ID_S1ojgfQCtsRA41lXORDHVQ)- –