“Shant Harutyunyan’s and his supporters’ actions against the illegal authority were natural”,-so was assessed by Arthur Sakunts, human rights defender, Country Director of HCA Vanadzor office, in the interview with Aravot.am, evaluating the clashes happened yesterday at the Liberty Square, between Shant Harutyunyan, his supporters and the police.
To the question whether the actions of the police and supporters of Shant Harutyunyan were legitimate, he said, “For me, at this point, it’s hard to distinguish who were Shant’s supporters and the provocateurs. It was obvious that there were provocateurs. It shows that, for example, Shant Harutyunyan’s supporters were going to Baghramyan 26, it was their target and they did not reach there, they were just on their way, when they were stopped.”
To our next question who is responsible for the wounded, Mr. Sakunts answered, “I would not like to go deeper into the details, because then we can lose the overall picture of the situation, in which these actions were carried out. A desperate situation has created in Armenia, when public institutions are not working. The case of 5 Mashtots, the actions near the City Hall, transport fare-related issues and so on. Therefore, in this situation, the actions performed by Shant and his supporters were the last scream, and it was entirely equivalent to the situation created in Armenia, when such behavior and laws are adopted by the authorities that are illegal and people are choosing a mutiny way as the last means.”
We asked whether he sees parallels with 1 March, Arthur Sakunts said, “On March 1, people were expressing their will peacefully, and the authorities acted violence against this peaceful demonstration, and those acting violence do not bear the responsibility until now. This impunity led to respective actions of people in the face of Shant and his supporters.”
Read also
Vardan Harutyunyan, also does not see a March 1 style in the events at the Liberty Square and says, “It is incompatible with March 1. On March 1, there was no violence or call to violence by citizens, people, opposition and demonstrators. It was an action planned and organized by the authorities against people, and seeking grounds of comparison with March 1 is condemnable by me. Even Shant’s speech of yesterday’s and those days are different. I think, yesterday, Shant and his supporters knew what they were doing. Shant knew that he was doing action for which there will be a reaction. He was expecting it, and it was not a surprise for Shant.” We inquired of the legal assessment of yesterday’s event, Mr. Harutyunyan replied, “There was violence, both by the police and the demonstrators. It should be clarified whether they are provocateurs, Shant’s supporters, or not. Any call to violence is unacceptable in any case.”
To the question whether he considers that policemen dressed in civilian clothes provoked, threw explosives, and so on, Mr. Harutyunyan responded as follows, “Given the practice of our authorities in the last few years, it is not that I am excluding it, but the fist thought that occurred to my mind, was that. As to what actions Shant Harutyunyan was going to apply, he was planning and saying in the presence of the police regarding the sticks and explosives. The police was to prevent from the beginning. So, in this sense, I consider the police actions provocative and number one responsible for the wounded was the police.” Mr. Harutyunyan thinks that a lot will become clear over the time. He does not connect the circumstance of becoming clear with the pre-investigation, and details, “Pre-investigations in Armenia are not for clarifying but for making a mess and shutting down.” To our last question whther there were unlawful actions in yesterday’s event, Mr. Harutyunyan replied, “Watching the video I see that both sides were prepared and were ready and were doing what they had planned before.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
