Law-enforcers have a very interesting habit – they love to bring charges against people and then bring a lawsuit against them, so to say, in a package, using the same text of the accusation for different people. It can be noticed, for example, in the cases regarding the events of March 1 – let’s say 7 people were sitting in the dock and they had ostensibly organized riots. It seemed they were Siamese twins and had taken the same action at the same time. They were condemned based on that shaky accusation without going into detail about when who did what, what statement or appeal he had made, as a result of which those riots had taken place. However, one should do a very subtle job to find causality here – the investigators writing the text of the accusation had surely examined the social psychology and couldn’t say when and why the law-abiding people engaged in riots and took up “axes and pitchforks.” In the cases regarding the events of March 1, there was certainly a 50% political instruction and the other 50% was the laziness and unprofessionalism of investigators and judges. The same “shares” can be noticed regarding the Harsnakar case. Six people are accused of “battery that led to an unintentional death” – they have chosen this subtle and mild definition to conceal a murder – and it is not clarified who did what, whether they delivered blows to all the victims equally and which of those blows were fatal for Vahe Avetyan. In the previous case, the investigation suggested “collective responsibility,” whereas in this case, it is the contrary – “collective irresponsibility.” Whose idea was to beat up the customers of the restaurant, who provoked it, who “put them up to that,” who committed the crime to what extent? What does the words “this guy is dead, don’t beat him anymore” mean? The investigation has not answered those questions, I am afraid, the court will not do that either. The counselors of the Harsnakar case victims’ legal successors and the Vahe Avetyan social initiative, in which there are people whom I respect and like very much, have rightfully paid attention to those circumstances. The only thing, with which I don’t agree, is the appeal of the initiative to establish a “people’s tribunal.” Regardless of which that “tribunal’s” goals, according to the initiators’ idea, will be, in reality, the idea may unintentionally lead to the institution of “revolutionary committees,” public inquisitors and executioners, which, from my viewpoint, must be rejected. Yes to demanding normal justice from corrupted law-enforcers who carry out a political instruction and no to trying to take justice in one’s own hands. As the character of the well-known comedy would say, “those are not our methods, Shurik.”
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
