The dialogue is much larger

Says the Minister of Justice Hrayr Tovmasyan in an interview given to “Aravot”

        –       You mentioned that this amnesty “had to create an atmosphere of tolerance”. In your assessment, how did the amnesty contribute to that end?

–       I think that it did. If we follow the press, the rhetoric, the questions and the emphases have changed; they talk about a dialogue, they talk about the future, and they talk about the future deeds. In this regard, there really is a change in the emphases like everything or nothing. If we wait for a little while more, I think the results will be more visible.

–       Is the possibility of a dialogue not already ruled out, when the government stated that the agenda suggested by the ANC, the pre-term elections is unacceptable?

–       Part of the society thought that the dialogue should be as follows, they sit and “you say-I say”. The matter is the social dialogue during which the people define their demands, their positions, their concerns, and the public authorities respond to that. I.e. it is a dialogue only if the issue “everything or nothing” or of destroying each other is not on the agenda. In this case, there is nothing to talk about. (Yesterday at the discussion organized by the “Civilitas” foundation, answering to the question of RL Mr. Tovmasyan said, “From the legal perspective there is no absolute right to dissolve the parliament. If before the amendments made to the Constitution in 2005, the president could dissolve the parliament for only political reasons at any time, which testified to the person centric or too centralized political system, then after the 2005 amendments the grounds to dissolve the NA that do not exist are strictly defined by the Constitution. If people think that they can reach the power in an unconstitutional way, no such thing is possible; there is no legal way today to hold a pre-term parliamentary election. I do not talk about the political, social, economic reasons, because only after all these reasons we can get back to the legal grounds. I think that these grounds do not exist either, and in this case, there are no legal grounds, therefore they cannot be in accordance with our Constitution. I would advise before making demands to have a look at whether those arise from the Constitution”, A. I.). This dialogue on the other hand is much larger. Nobody let any structure privatize the opposition rights and decide any format according to which  they can negotiate with the government. The dialogue is much larger; it is much broader and those processes should be rightly understood and rightly perceived, in order that the existing problems can be solved.

–       Did it not turn out that in order to release two prisoners convicted for political reasons roughly 400 criminals convicted of theft, fraud, robbery, and vandalism were amnestied?

–       You could go on with the list, the convicts of unpremeditated murder etc. But no, no and no it did not.

–       You mentioned that in your view “the office of the Minister of Justice was a very good office for an analyst, and I perceived myself as a very good analyst, I had to go and deal with the laws” and added that you were in the round of becoming a politician from a good analyst then.

–       I had that misunderstanding that this is an office for a good analyst. In reality, this is a political office and the minister is responsible for adopting the politics in that field.

–       However, becoming a politician where will you appear, probably, among the ruling majority, the RPA.

–       I am there, where you see me, the Minister of Justice. At the moment, it is not on my agenda to become a member of any party.

–       It has been more than two years since you have become a minister and I wonder in your opinion what can one man change in the system?

–       I am not alone; there are like-minded persons in that system who think in the right way. Maybe they will become more afterwards, and the problems will be solved.