Where is the Borderline Between the State and the Government?

The Head of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor office, Artur Sakunts, clarifies his proposal regarding the application of punitive measures against Armenia.

-  During the meeting with the Commissioner on Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, which was held on January 18, it was proposed to prohibit entry access of some Government representatives to several European countries.  The head of Helsinki Association-Armenia proposed applying various punitive measures against Armenia, as in the case of Belarus, and also several economic measures. How are the sanctions evaluated?    Should they be considered as proposals against the Government or just Armenia? 

- The proposal I made during the meeting with Thomas Hammarberg was clearly defined, that is, punitive measures should be applied against Armenia, specifically, prohibiting entry access of those RA officials that, in our opinion, are directly associated not only with 2008 March 1 events, but also identified with 10 murders, the existence of political prisoners, disproportionate application of force and other forms of crimes. At that point, I named Serzh Sargsyan and Aghvan Hovsepyan. I also mentioned Special Investgation Service and the names of those investigators and judges, who held the trail proceedings.   

The names of defense minister Mikayel Harutyunyan and chief of the RA Police Hayk Harutyunyan should have also been mentioned. Thus, the sense of the proposal determines that targeted punitive measures be applied against the executive power and law-enforcement bodies responsible for human rights violations. This will show that such violations won’t be tolerated by the international public and entities that Armenia has membership with.

Currently, the officials and the Government are parallel in the comments following the proposals. This is a concept I cannot agree with. If the Government head has committed a crime, does it mean it was executed by the Government?  I don’t think so. 

- However, the proposal of decreasing financial support allocated to Armenia cannot refer only to government officials.

- Our experience shows that (and we referred to it during the meeting) when Millennium Challenge Corporation decreased the financial support allocated to Armenia for road- construction projects, the Government didn’t draw any inference regarding it. despite showing red flags that we didn’t meet the criteria defined by MCC and that there was a great risk for decreasing financial allocations, no conclusions were drawn to provide those criteria then, and not even after, the funds were in fact decreased. Robert Kocharyan’s reaction was simply that they would raise the funds from other resources. Such people aren’t influenced by anything. Reduction of funds doesn’t have any vital impact on Government representatives with such a prospective. As is well known, the system is so corrupt that allocated funds aren’t spend on targeted issues and are utilized with little efficacy. In this sense, the reduction of funds is justified.

I will present another example concerning border issues. If the country has an authoritarian or totalitarian regime that carries out violations against its citizens, it is allowed to exert forced measures against them. Legal leverage should certainly be applied against those powers and individuals, including filing criminal cases, assessing criminal liability, as the Court of England filed a case against Pinochet.

- I would like to respond to another question on the border issue. According to our data, during another visit with Thomas Hammarberg, cases of criminality in the army were to be discussed; however, the only issue that was brought up by one of the human rights defenders was that RA citizens serve in Nagorno-Karabakh. Don’t you consider this also a Government’s issue?  I was present during the meeting. The issue is that RA Civil Service can be provided outside the borders of Armenia only based on the National Assembly resolution, as in the case of implementation of the peace-building mission in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I would like to mention the need for legitimacy: the National Assembly most definitely should initiate a resolution stating that the RA army should be applied for safety and security reasons of the Nagorno-Karabakh citizens. I think that this will be made fully justified from the prospective of international law. However, currently if a criminal case is filed against a RA citizen in the army, as in the example of Mataghis case, RA court reaches a resolution to apply detention, but it is exerted outside of RA borders in the Shushi fortress. I can visit that detention facility as an observer. There is an unresolved chain of legal issues that increase the risk for human rights violation.

- I would also ask, how do you evaluate National Assembly deputy chairman Samvel Nikoyan’s assessment? or do you think “these are evident activities targeted at the interests of our people and Government”. These are activities of the fifth echelon against the Government formulated by some “grant eaters” for many, long years. Moreover, “they have presented those proposals to their sources,    because they carry out “for fee services” against the RA”.

- Such accusations are made periodically, when we identify the Government’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses via our proclamations and actions.  But these are the Power’s and not the Government’s weak points. And we have no other means of re-dress but to publicize everything.

We are used to such assessments:  when one cannot oppose the theory the victim is blamed. This is a trivial and very primitive method that has accompanied mankind since medieval times.

www.aravot.am