The MP Says About the Bill That Was Withdrawn By the Cabinet Then Put Forward Again
Yesterday a working discussion took place in the parliament, at which draft decisions on the agenda of the 11th session of the 4th convocation and on the agendas of the upcoming 4-day session were discussed. By one of these decisions, the Cabinet has put forward for discussion at the upcoming meeting in the National Assembly the Legal Regime of the State of Emergency bill again, which was passed on first reading on February 9 through a rigged voting. The Cabinet brought it back, explaining that this disputable bill, by which the participation of the army in the internal political processes of the country was legalized, needed revision. That revision has been done by the Cabinet with lightning speed – let us remind that Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan withdrew the bill by the letter dated February 22 and put it forward for the parliament’s consideration yesterday. Article 9, disputable for the parliamentary opposition and other political forces, was basically not changed in the revised edition, in one place they just changed the word order and “armed illegal” has become “illegally armed” and they added also the following sentence, “Involvement of the armed forces should mostly aim at solving the problems mentioned in Clauses 2 through 4 of Section 2 of this article.” Whereas Minister of Justice Hrayr Tovmasyan said during a conversation with Radio Liberty that 2 important amendments had been made to the bill. According to him, firstly the transitional provisions of the bill stipulated that the armed forces could participate only after special training. Secondly the contact between the armed forces and the population in the state of emergency should be almost ruled out. Particularly, according to him, a few “straightjackets”, restrictions are provided for by the bill to prevent the contact between the armed forces and the population. Certainly, this time the Cabinet will put forward the bill in a package, because, according to the minister, the main reason for withdrawing the bill that had been passed on first reading was that the bill lacked articles providing for responsibility in case of violating that law.
During a conversation with Aravot, Larisa Alaverdyan, the secretary of the Heritage Party parliamentary faction, said that the package included also some changes to the Administrative Crimes bill. Have the changes and amendments substantially changed the bill in terms of disputable Article 9, in particular, and does the new bill suffice the faction’s expectations? Ms. Alaverdyan did not agree on the term “disputable” in the first place, saying that it “is not a disputable bill, it is unacceptable.” She stated that the clause about the army should be either removed from Article 9 of the bill completely or not be just edited, but be completely rewritten, as other international documents require, “In particular, first of all it must be clarified that the army must not be engaged in contact with civilians in any way and the army should be ordered to defend and preserve special objects only in extreme situations, taking over that duty from the police forces by that, in order that the latter fulfill other actions provided for by this law.”
Read also
We reminded the MP that according to the minister’s statement, the armed “forces are not used, if the police and the national security forces suffice, secondly if the issue are riots etc., the police should be engaged in contact and the armed forces should defend special objects. If the state of emergency is caused by emergency situations, natural disasters, they must participate in evacuation of the people etc. This can be done only as the last resort.” Does this explanation address the concerns of the Heritage MPs or perhaps one could say that the bill as it is corresponds to the Constitution? “I repeat, the involvement of the army in the internal political activities should be ruled out completely. On the other hand, our concern is that in our country, even a small opportunity or loophole in the law is used completely differently in the law-enforcement practice and allows arbitrary interpretation in the future. Furthermore, it becomes dangerous against the background of the election,” said the MP.
It is a common idea that passing this bill is caused by the upcoming election and the possible post-election developments. Therefore, we asked whether she thought that the National Assembly election could cause so much tension in the country that the establishment would sense the necessity for this law. “The tension will not arise, but it has remained since 2008. The tension is there and any big event, including elections, may play the role of the last drop in the context of stirring up the tension. Certainly, the concerns remain in this regard, particularly given the fact that, regardless of the West’s intention to turn over the page of March 1, our society has not turned that page over yet, since they haven’t punished persons who, being murderers, are still at large, which makes the situation more complex,” stated Larisa Alaverdyan.
NAIRA MAMIKONYAN
