The letter sent to our editorial gives rise to doubt accordingly
Our contacts with the law enforcers entered the phase of correspondence genre. During the three days following the referendum, we were communicating with them on the phone, during which the law enforcers were asking various clarifications about our publications pertaining to voting, calling the authors for explanation and so on. Initially, when there was too much work, the phone calls were slightly irritating. Then, we began telling the next investigator that he, let’s say, is the seventh or the eighth one who is calling. There were also such an extraordinary phone talks, like, for example, with the representative of the Malatya Police Department.
– You have published a note on December 6, the “Photo from the “Media” center”. Are you ready to answer questions regarding it?
– If it is not difficult, will you tell who the author is?
Read also
– Anush Matevosyan. Will you give her phone number?
– You know, she has covered the press conference held in “Media” center. Moreover, since the day was very busy, and there were many events, she was not even present at the press conference, in particular, she just followed the recording and prepared the publication.
– In other words, have you posted the video yourself?
– No, we have not posted, it was done by the “Media” center. The video was available on the Internet.
– Will you give the phone number of the “Media Center”?
– It is on the Internet. But I am sorry, but this center has just organized the press conference, and maybe it would be better for you to ask for clarifications from the person, who has made these allegations during the press conference.
– It is the Armenia Helsinki Committee Chairman Avetik Ishkhanyan. Will you give his phone number?
– The Helsinki Committee phone number is available on the Internet.
During this shortly described but actually quite long-lasting phone conversation, it seemed that it was possible to finally deliver the message to the investigator, as in the end he made a normal argument that he will involve us if it turns out that there is a contradiction between the statements made by “Aravot” and Avetik Ishkhanyan. But no, later, anyway, he had called the journalist, and when the latter had said that he had followed “online”, was curious, “What? To ask for the recording, although the journalist has also told that the video is available on the Internet and so on.
Regarding the same publication, on December 9, we received a letter from the Marash division of the Police Central Department. Since it is addressed to the editor-in-chief of Aravot.am newspaper, Aram Abrahamyan, perhaps, we need to inform the law enforcers that there is no such newspaper, there is an “Aravot” Daily and its online version, Aravot.am.
The police are asking for an explanation from us regarding the allegations of Avetik Ishkhanyan during the press conference that people vote with Russian passports. “Please tell us what served as a ground for the publication of the article, there are other information of key importance for the case, and if so, please provide them.” Well, what should we answer to this letter … that the fact that the coverage of the press conference served as a ground for the publication? No other sentence comes to my mind.
However, I do not know of any such sentence as to what can be answered to already beloved Malatya Police Department for sending the following letter to us on December 8, “We inform you that the Malatia division of the Police Department is investigating the case regarding the publication in “Aravot” daily as of 8.11.2015 entitled “TIAC. Use of administrative resources in preparation for the referendum.” Please ensure the author of the publication or the authorized person to the Malatya Police Department in the shortest period of time for giving an explanation regarding the publication.”
There is not publication in “Aravot” Daily with this title. And, generally, our newspaper was not issued at all on that day as it was Sunday on November 8. There is no such publication with this title on the website too. Instead, we have posted two messages of the “Citizen Observer” Initiative on our website and none of them was published on the day mentioned by the police. The first summary about the obvious and possible use of administrative resources was published on November 4, and the second one – on November 20.
And fabricated by the police and actually the titles of our published articles obviously show that it is not a media authored release, but just a release sent to the media.
Now what, should we give explanations instead of the authors of the summary? Or, how are you going to ensure the presence of the “Citizen Observer” Initiative or, at least, the TIAC being a part of it to the Police Department? Should we ask them friendly to come voluntarily, or use handcuffs and detain them?
And the last question. Is preparation of materials for the investigation in this manner a result of unawareness and, to say the least, inadequate professional preparedness, or with such sloppy and ignorant manners, they pretend that they are investigating the alerts about the violations?
Anna ISRAELYAN,
“Aravot” Daily
