– Do you think that the preliminary investigation body has fulfilled the demand made by President of the Republic of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan during a consultation at the Presidential Palace in April 2011 in regard to the criminal investigation launched on the March 1 events of 2008, “To refer again and more thoroughly even to those circumstances, where in your opinion there can be found no new things. Try to find new ways of revealing those events. A long while has passed, perhaps there are people who witnessed and did not wish to cooperate with the law-enforcement bodies at the time and now have different approaches. This is also very probable.”
– According to Serzh Sargsyan’s instruction, the definition of which was not explicitly mandatory in its nature, one can say that the preliminary investigation body has fulfilled that instruction. That is to say, he systematically showed first of all to the international organizations, as well as our society that they are “in search”, they refer to the new examination of old circumstances “more thoroughly”. Actually their old examinations have become the subject of that “search” and thorough examination. In other words, they carefully re-read the material consisting of thousands of pages written by them in the past.
I would like to note at the same time that the instruction mentioned that the preliminary investigation body had to find “new” ways of uncovering. Actually there was and is no need for looking for new ways, already known circumstances should have been examined, which had been deliberately ignored before.
The preliminary investigation body understood the demand of Serzh Sargsyan’s instruction in the way it wanted that to be understood and acted accordingly, it didn’t uncover any case of death, it didn’t punish any people responsible, a report assessing the victims as criminals was published. The fact that this work style and the report published as a result of that completely correspond to Serzh Sargsyan’s demand is upheld by Vahagn Harutyunyan’s promotion.
Read also
– Don’t you think that after this instruction and during the later dialogue the issue of revealing people responsible for the crimes was pushed to the sidelines. In any case, the Armenian National Congress (ANC) representatives have started to refer to that issue seldom, the relatives of the dead speak of that more.
– I don’t think that the issue of people responsible for the deaths has been pushed to the sidelines, it has been and continues remaining one of the most important demands of the movement. However, I cannot help, but agree with the notion that the dialogue did not contribute to fulfilling that demand.
Relatives of the dead are the main demanders, but it doesn’t mean that only they have to carry the burden – all of us, the whole society has to be demanders of March 1. The lack of uncovering October 27, as well as March 1 does not make it possible for us to get out of this venomous political atmosphere, it doesn’t give the right to the establishment to speak of conducting free and fair elections and deprives the opposition of the ability to participate in such elections. Therefore, March 1 must be uncovered before the election. If the establishment doesn’t do that, then it will be done by joint efforts of the opposition forces and NGOs.
– What is your commentary on anger of relatives of those who were killed? In particular, when in December the Cabinet of Armenia denied the proposal of giving money to the relatives of those who were killed during the March 1 events of 2008, Zarik Artinyan, the mother of Samvel Harutyunyan who was killed, observed during a conversation with Radio Liberty, “The opposition doesn’t do anything either.”
– The discontent of relatives of those who were killed will remain unless the full-scale uncovering is done and all the people responsible starting with Robert Kocharyan, are punished. I am convinced that it is primary for the relatives that murderers and those who gave them the order stand a trial and not that they get a financial compensation. Unless that issue is solved, their discontent with also the opposition is absolutely understandable for me, because they see the change of power as the only way to justice and the only executor of which the united opposition society that is, in my opinion, the majority in our country.
The discontent with the opposition expressed by the relatives is one of the criteria of efficiency for the opposition activities. ANC, as one of the main opposition forces, one of the founding demands of which is the uncovering of March 1and punishment of the people responsible for that, cannot help but take into account this fact.
– As a member of the former Fact-Gathering Group that examined the list, according to which on March 1 groups of a set of officials and oligarchs, including Gagik Tsarukyan, got uniforms from the Ministry of Defense and participated in illegal actions, how do you assess the fact that ANC leader Levon Ter-Petrossian in his political analysis did not rule out the possibility of cooperating with the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP)?
– I have expressed my opinion on all the people responsible for March 1 many times. I can repeat that PAP and Robert Kocharyan are indivisible partners and it is obvious at the moment that they continue the logic of joint activities. I don’t see any possibility of cooperating with PAP unless the complete and comprehensive uncovering of March 1 is done.
– How do you assess the fact that after this analysis pro-Kocharyan mass media enthusiastically started to speak of mines in ANC, mentioning also your name in this regard?
– It would be better if the mass media serving Robert Kocharyan made their analyses based not on mirages, but considering the reality. And the reality is the following – yes, my friends and I can be mines but not inside ANC, but in the way of Robert Kocharyan and people like him, in order that October 27 and March 1 do not recur in our country.
Interviewed Anna ISRAYELYAN
