On June 23, last year, the police used violence against the activists protesting against the electricity price hike and the journalists covering the protest at the Baghramyan Avenue in Yerevan. They broke the journalists’ cameras, seized the memory cards and so on. On December 6, during the referendum on Constitutional amendments, a number of incidents also occurred. On January 12, this year, the Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan signed a resignation. Whether we can conclude from the aforementioned events that during the last year, Armenia has registered a setback on the human rights protection. To get the answer to this question, “Aravot” asked the expert for international rights, lawyer Ara Ghazaryan to comment. “It’s hard to say. Of course, the events of June 23 and the following lack of investigation showed the systemic problem. In this sense, we can draw a conclusion that there was pressure against the HRD causing him to quit his mission. Neither he says anything, nor we have a proof. Hence, in that sense, I do not want to express an opinion based on the assumption,” replied Ara Ghazaryan.
According to him, Karen Andreasyan must give an explanation of why he submitted a resignation. To our observation that in his latest statement Andreasyan mentioned that if he had remained in the position of the Ombudsman in 2016, then this most important institution would no longer be so effective as it had become thanks to the long years of work, Ara Ghazaryan responded that it says nothing, “We need a fact rather than mysterious things. The public wants to know why the Ombudsman submitted a resignation.” Ara Ghazaryan thinks that the Ombudsman institute during the tenure of Karen Andreasyan was more established, “We could see that different circles of this institute were working irrespective of whether the Ombudsman would be in the office or not. The system was clearly working. In other words, it was like the institutions in our reality that depend on one person. Indeed, today’s HRD office has more an institutional nature. There are various groups and various procedures and all of them are working. I am convinced in it with my own experience. We have worked together, he has good skills as an organizer.”
We wondered why the government first appoints Human Rights Defenders and then after a harsh statement or a report by them, they begin to criticize them even to the level of personal insults, and this happened to all 3 Ombudsmen (Larisa Alaverdyan, Armen Harutyunyan, Karen Andreasyan). Mr. Ghazaryan replied, “There is a biased approach by the authorities towards this institution. The authorities, as a rule, criticize and say that the report is one-sided. Even if it is one-sided, if the facts are irrefutable, the authorities must accept them as such.”
According to the lawyer, it turns out that the authorities do not take the Ombudsman’s institution seriously. “I have also criticized about one report drive by the methodology. But criticizing is one thing and denying another thing. Now, the authorities are trying first of all to deny. The HRD is presenting pretty sufficiently fixed facts. While passing to the personal insults is a result of an absence of political culture. The European institutions always say that there is no political culture in Armenia.”
Read also
We also asked Ara Ghazaryan how the Human Rights Defender should be in that case so that the government authorities are pleased. There is an opinion that the government authorities wants him not to hear anything, not to see anything and not to talking anything. “Neither the people nor the country needs such an Ombudsman. Maybe the authorities need it. However, we need to differentiate 3 phenomena: the state, the people or the power. These 3 interests do not always coincide. In other words, if the authorities need such an Ombudsman, this does not mean that the people and the country need him,” said Mr. Ghazaryan. Ara Ghazaryan believes that the next Human Rights Defender must be a person who has operated balanced, “A Human Rights Defender why has a good experience and has always given balanced assessments to the things. Andreasyan has always been a balanced personality but he did not have contributions in the field of human rights. Now, we need to have a person who has these two qualities. Karen Andreasyan was objective and he was trying to give objective assessments to the things. He was able to make the institution run. Larisa Alaverdyan and Armen Harutyunyan were also good defenders. One should supplement the other rather than destroy, this is very important.”
Ashot ISRAELYAN,
“Aravot” daily
