Aravot’s interview with human rights advocate Vardan Harutyunyan, the head of the Center for Freedom and Rights
– As the former coordinator of the Committee of Political Prisoners and Politically Persecuted Persons, what do you think about the debates recently, on who under what conditions was in correctional institutions, who is a prisoner of conscience and who is not, who was released under what conditions etc.?
– This argument, I should say a cheap showdown, with participation of the former prisoners of conscience is a sad thing. As a prisoner of conscience of the Soviet times, who has spent not a small part of his life in prison and realizes that atmosphere, I can convincingly say that it is easier to be a prisoner of conscience in prison, than after being released, not to compromise the name of the prisoner of conscience outside.
It is sad that the former prisoners of conscience are engaged in this kind of public debate, one because of self-assertion, another for earning his living, another because of not being able to overcome the problems that he had in prison, another because of imaginary or real offense. Man becomes a prisoner of conscience not of his own free will, but by the will of the ruling establishment, however, he gains the status of the present or former prisoner of conscience as a duty voluntarily and I think he must be within the limits of the obligations arising out of it.
Read also
The ruling establishment imprisoned them all through its illegal courts, the ruling establishment decided, which of them will be imprisoned under what conditions, whose door will be closed, whose will be open, who will be released when and under what conditions, who will be persecuted how and to what extent and who will not be persecuted at all, against whom violence will be used and on whom they will not even lay a finger. This is the simple truth. It is surprising that some of people who have gone through various ordeals for three years were not able to gain so much experience as to be able to be above temptations of attributing such blames to each other today.
As a result of arbitrariness of the establishment that carried out political persecutions and suppressions, people that had different social statuses and different perceptions of life appeared in the same camp and became prisoners of conscience. That factor could and had to reconcile them. Many of them, as far as I know, are friends, but some of them, as it turns out, have a long way to go before reconciling and making friends.
– Although “who started” is an infantile explanation, but in your opinion, who is to blame for beginning all this, who is responsible, who started such discussions?
– I am convinced that all this is a result of the establishment’s provocation. Some people unwillingly become participants of that provocation. This shows the naivety and shortsightedness of the people who participated in that argument-showdown. The boomerang thrown by every one of them comes back to himself. The same thing that one says about another that man can say about him. We understand this from the shoot-out between them in the press. At the moment, one should talk about not who was the first to speak, but who will be the first to STOP speaking.
– Don’t you think that the three-year history of the prisoners for political reasons is discredited by that?
– Yes, of course, it is discredited. But I want to particularly stress that the idea of prisoner of conscience itself is not discredited, but only the history of some people, arrested as a result of the 2008 presidential election and having a status of prisoners of conscience, is discredited. We know brilliant present and former prisoners of conscience, who can and were able not to compromise that name and be above various commonplace and everyday arguments and bargains.
Anna ISRAYELYAN
