Andranik Kocharyan, the head of the Armenian Center for Democracy, Security and Development, thinks that the decision of the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) parliamentary group to boycott today’s vote in the National Assembly was not right. “I cannot draw a final conclusion based on the attorney’s application… questions need to be asked to find out whether the explanations are legitimate or not. I read that the Prosperous Armenia Party would boycott today, which I think is not a right decision. Moreover, the PAP leader is not participating in the meeting today; this is a very strange thing, because the whole Prosperous Armenia Party should have demanded clear explanations from the attorney in the first place. I cannot say why they boycotted, but it is not a right decision. Not only the PAP, but also everyone should have participated in that meeting and revealed whether there was a political instruction behind this application or not,” Andranik Kocharyan said during a conversation with www.aravot.am about Attorney General Aghvan Vardanyan’s application on former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian discussed in the National Assembly today.
According to him, Mr. Oskanian has always avoided answering many questions, particularly regarding information on the events of March 1, “He could have answered many questions regarding the events of March 1, but he didn’t reveal the facts he knew to the public. Oskanian had better remember from time to time that he can communicate valuable information on March 1. It is very normal, let Mr. Oskanian give explanations; one shouldn’t politicize everything. Tomorrow Khachikyan or Serob Ter-Poghosyan may say that they are victims of political persecution.”
As for the articles of The Washington Post and Al Jazeera on Mr. Oskanian, in which charges of money laundering against the Civilitas Foundation had been explained by the fact that V. Oskanian is independent and potentially pro-Western, Mr. Kocharyan said, “I don’t share that opinion at all, because I don’t see what being pro-Western has to do with this. On the contrary, I see that one could have brought other charges against Oskanian, if the attorney’s office had read an article published in the press a few years ago, which contained serious factual basis not denied by Mr. Oskanian after all. The article was entitled The Complementary Concealer of March 1. The Washington Post may write articles for certain payment. I don’t know who wrote and based on what facts he reached those conclusions.”
Read also
Arpine SIMONYAN
