RIGHTS CHAMPION SAYS NO POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ARMENIA
Ayots Ashkar, Yerevan
3 Jun 04
An interview with the director of the Human Rights Centre, Levon
Nersisyan.
(Levon Nersisyan) The point is that there is no classical
definition of the term of political prisoner that may be applied
in all cases. Moreover, more than once I took part in Ago Group
(of the Council of Europe Cabinet of Ministers) meetings, and every
time the question arises: who can be considered to be a political
prisoner? Leaders of some of our organizations and me have quite
contradictory views concerning this problem. They (the leaders) think
that political prisoners are Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to serve
in the army and are called to justice.
I do not agree with this view. Why? Because there is the law. It is
quite a different problem that it could be good or bad. A group of
human rights champions think, proceeding from international norms
and moral, cultural and other kind of norms, that this or that law
violates human rights. In this case, struggle to improve that law
should be a priority in their activities. But in any case one should
not break the law.
(Passage omitted: Nersisyan on terms used by Amnesty International)
On the whole, a person who is arrested for his or her political
beliefs, the beliefs which did not lead to a violation of the law,
should be considered to be a political prisoner. Though there is
no classical definition of the term of political prisoner that is
universally accepted.
(Correspondent) Nevertheless, are there political prisoners in Armenia?
(Nersisyan) No, I do not think there are. First, today no-one in
Armenia has been sentenced under the “political article”. There is no
clause in the legislation of the country which makes one answerable
for his or her political convictions.
Second, I do not think there are really “political convictions”
in Armenia. There are kinship, clan, corporate and other kind of
convictions, but not political ones. To be convinced of this, it
is enough to look at the “political field” of our country. Tell me
please, according to what “political convictions” do our political
forces differ from one another? What are their programmes? I am afraid
that the only difference is that part of the forces are in power,
and the second part want to find themselves there.
It means that the fight is for satisfaction of their own interests.
Unfortunately, here I do not see policy and “political convictions”.
And second, many political leaders are members of the nomenklatura
which used to enjoy power and some material values stemming from it
and which has now been deprived of this. That is, I would call them
“protestants” whose protest stems from certain conditions. This could
be personal hatred of somebody, but this is not policy.
(Passage omitted: minor details)