A few days ago, www.aravot.am wrote about the noncontact confrontation between Karen Hekimyan, the head of the Citizen Rights Protector NGO, and Karen Andreasyan, the Human Rights Defender.
Let us remind that K. Hekimyan applied to Karen Andreasyan, the Human Rights Defender, on May 23, asking him to record that his rights had been violated and to take action to hold the violators accountable. He raised the issue that 15 days after the parliamentary election that had taken place on May 6, 2012, he noticed that the stamp with inscription CEC (Central Election Commission) put on his passport by the election commission of no. 12/03 polling station in Yerevan had not disappeared. In regard to this, K. Hekimyan expressed an opinion during a conversation with www.aravot.am that the Human Rights Defender just performed the functions of mailman and K. Andreasyan preferred not to respond to the accusations against him.
After our article had been published, Karen Hekimyan received the decision of the Human Rights Defender to cease considering his complaint. During a conversation with www.aravot.am, K. Hekimyan expressed his annoyance presenting he following explanation of the Human Rights Defender, “Unfortunately, the abilities given to the Human Rights Defender in accordance with the Human Rights Defender Act of the Republic of Armenia to solve the issue you have raised in state bodies have been exhausted.”
In this regard, K. Hekimyan said, “The Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia expresses his regret on behalf of the Republic of Armenia to me, a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, for the fact that all abilities to defend my rights in my country have been exhausted. And we talk about Hungary and Safarov. Why should Hungary defend the interests of Gurgen Margaryan’s legal successor, if my interests are not defended in the Republic of Armenia? This testifies to the negligence of the Human Rights Defender. Can
Read also
you imagine Solzhenitsyn, Havel and Sakharov stating that they cannot defend human rights anymore? The Human Rights Defender must defend human rights, period.”
Our interlocutor thinks that it is a disgrace that the Human Rights Defender refers to Article 15 of the Human Rights Defender Act of the Republic of Armenia in his decision addressed to him stating that in accordance with it, he ceases considering the complaint. Whereas K. Hekimyan claims that the law reads something completely different and remarks, “If a person doesn’t know what is written in that Article, how can he protect human rights?”
According to K. Hekomyan’s observation, K. Andreasyan made a set of other mistakes too. For example, Mr. Hekimyan applied only to the Central Election Commission (CEC) to solve the issue, or made public data he was aware of on one of the websites, the right to which he didn’t have.
K. Hekimyan has filed a petition in the administrative court. Our interlocutor mentioned what he demanded, in particular, “I want the Human Rights Defender to defend human rights. There is no mention in any article of the Constitution about exhausted abilities and expressing regret to a person, what the Human Rights Defender wrote is not legal.”
K. Hekimyan continues to claim that there are no mechanisms to hold the Human Rights Defender accountable, in case of his negligence. Therefore, K. Hekimyan also raises this issue – the compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
