Month: June 2005

Newropeans Magazine
June 7 2005
Turkey legalizes the Denial of the Armenian Genocide – 2nd Part –

Written by Houry Mayissian
Tuesday, 07 June 2005
90 years have passed since Ottoman Turkey committed genocide against
its Christian Armenian subjects in 1915. Although several parliaments
have recognized the Armenian Genocide and many historians have
established that it is a historical fact, the Turkish government
still refuses to acknowledge it. It has, in the past 90 years,
implemented several methods to deny the genocide ever happened. The
latest of these measures was the recent criminalization of the
acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide in the new Turkish Penal
Code, which took effect on June 1.
One of many Turkish Efforts to Deny the Genocide
Article 305 is one of the most recent moves in a campaign the Turkish
government has embarked upon to deny the Armenian Genocide. A
prominent historian on the Armenian Genocide, Richard Hovannisian,
has argued that during the years that followed the Armenian Genocide,
the strategy of the perpetrators of the Genocide and their successor,
the Turkish Republic, was `to avoid public discussion of the genocide
believing that in the course of time the survivors would pass from
the scene, their children would become acculturated and assimilated
in the Diaspora, and the issue would be forgotten.'(1) Hovannisian
has analyzed Turkish denial strategies and pointed out that one
often-used method is denial under the guise of historical debate. The
historian has examined in detail how the Turkish government attempts
to present a distorted version of historical realities.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erodgan’s proposal to Armenia for
setting up a joint committee of Armenian and Turkish historians, to
examine the issue, might be considered as the latest such effort. The
proposal was rejected by the Armenian government based on the premise
that historians have already made their statements on the Armenian
Genocide. Instead, Armenian president Robert Kocharian proposed steps
towards establishing diplomatic relations between the two
countries(2).
Another historian, Rouben Adalian, has talked about three lines of
arguments advanced by disputers of the Armenian Genocide: The denial
thesis `reverses the course of history and depict the victims as the
victimizers’, the revisionist thesis does not deny the fact, but
tries to explain them in a way as to dispute that genocide occurred,
the justification thesis defends `the policy of genocide by regarding
the policy as an acceptable solution to a political problem.’ (3)
Article 305 of the Turkish Penal Code is only one example of the
denialist policy of the Turkish Government. Its significance,
however, lies in the fact that it `legalizes’ such denial and
sanctions punishments against those who affirm the fact.
Reactions to article 305
The reactions to the article have not been many. Moreover, no
justification has been given by any Turkish official or the
government for the adoption of the article. The only explanation for
it is included in the article itself, which considers affirmation of
the Armenian Genocide to be against `national interests’.
First news about the existence of the article broke before the
adoption of the Penal Code, when the European Armenian Federation for
Justice and Democracy (EAFJD), a Brussels based lobby group, issued a
press release, warning that the new Turkish Penal Code would
criminalize affirmation of the Armenian Genocide and calling on the
`European Commission to end its silence in the face of Turkey’s
denial campaign.'(4) The federation warned that the article is
`fundamentally incompatible with the European values of free
expression and called on political parties, governments and human
rights organizations across Europe to urge the European Commission to
demand justice for the Armenian Genocide.
Nevertheless, the Penal Code was adopted and with it the article.
Press releases issued by the EAFJD, the Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA), a US based lobby group, and a couple of
non-governmental organizations condemning the article, attested to
its adoption.
In early October 2004, the EAFJD issued a press release informing
that it has submitted to the European Commission a detailed report
about the strategy of the Turkish Government vis-à-vis Armenian
issues. The report had a `special focus on the recent adoption of
article 305 which criminalizes the affirmation of the Armenian
Genocide.'(5) The executive director of the federation warned in the
press release that `this attack on liberty clearly contradicts
accepted international laws dealing with freedom of speech,
specifically articles 10, 11 and 14 of the European Charter of
Fundamental Rights’.
(1) Hovannisian, R. G. (1999). Introduction. In R. G. Hovhannisian
(ed), Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide
(13-29). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
(2) Danyelyan, E. and Melkumian, H. Kocharian rejects Turkish offer
of joint Genocide study. Retrieved 06-06-2005.
(3) Adalian, R. (1992). The Armenian Genocide: Revisionism and
Denial. In M.N. Dobkowski and I. Wallimann (ed), Genocide in Our
Time: An Annotated Bibliography with Analytical Introductions
(85-105). Michigan: The Pierian Press.
(4) The new Turkish Penal Code would criminalize recognition of the
Armenian Genocide. Retrieved 01-01-2005.
(5) EAFJD delivers report on Turkey to the European Commission.
Retrieved 06-10-2004.

Newropeans Magazine
June 8 2005
Turkey legalizes the Denial of the Armenian Genocide – 3rd Part –

Written by Houry Mayissian
Wednesday, 08 June 2005
90 years have passed since Ottoman Turkey committed genocide against
its Christian Armenian subjects in 1915. Although several parliaments
have recognized the Armenian Genocide and many historians have
established that it is a historical fact, the Turkish government
still refuses to acknowledge it. It has, in the past 90 years,
implemented several methods to deny the genocide ever happened. The
latest of these measures was the recent criminalization of the
acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide in the new Turkish Penal
Code, which took effect on June 1.
On 4th October 2004, the office of US Congressman Frank Pallone
(D-NJ), who also is the co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on
Armenian Issues, informed in a press release that the congressman had
urged the State Department to condemn article 305 of the Penal Code
(1). The congressman wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, urging him to condemn the article and pointing out that its
adoption is `an imprudent step on the part of a nation that is
desperately trying to establish an image of having a free and
democratic society.’
Given that the new penal code was adopted by demands from the
European Union and considered `one of the key elements in the
country’s bid to start membership negotiations with the European
Union'(2), The European Union also made references to article 305 in
several reports on Turkey’s membership.
On 30th November 2004, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European
Parliament adopted a proposal for a resolution on the `2004 regular
report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey’s
progress towards accession’. In its report the Foreign Affairs
Committee adopted an amendment welcoming the reform of criminal
procedure, but considered that `article 305 of the new Turkish penal
code which sanctions alleged `threats to fundamental national
interests’ and the explanatory statement of which targets freedom of
expression, in particular related to the Cyprus and Armenia issues,
is incompatible with the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.'(3) The Committee called for the
repeal of the article. In December, prior to the European Union
summit that would give the green light for accession talks with
Turkey, the European Parliament adopted the parliamentary report on
Turkey’s progress toward accession. In its report, the Parliament
included the amendment mentioned above (4).
The OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media Haraszti, described
article 305 in his May 2005 review as a de facto censorship
provision, given that it can be used to punish any speech that is not
in conformity with the views of the Government on the issues listed
in paragraph 4 (5). Referring to the clause about receiving benefits
for spreading propaganda, Haraszti pointed out that the article does
not `exclude any interpretation of journalistic salaries as pecuniary
benefits for spreading propaganda.’ (5)
The article was also criticized by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF),
the Writers in Prison Committee (WiPC) of International PEN, the
International Publishers Association (IPA) and Amnesty International.
RSF considered that article 305 `specifically targets freedom of
expression’ (6). The IPA sent letters to the EU Dutch presidency,
Romano Prodi (then president of the European Commission) and
Jose-Manuel Barroso, its new president, calling on them to urge the
Turkish Government to abandon the criminalization of the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide (7). IPA considered the article a move that
jeopardizes freedom of expression and the freedom to publish. IPA and
PEN issued in December a joint guide entitled `New Turkish Penal
Code: A Long Way to Freedom of Expression’. In the guide, the
organizations called for the repealing of the explanatory report of
article 305 that includes the examples on the Armenian Genocide and
the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus. The organizations
pointed out:
`Allegations of genocide against Armenians and Kurds’ is a ground
that is sometimes brought against writers and publishers. This was
for instance the case of publisher Ali Varis and writer Mamo Bayram
for the book entitled: `Kocgiri – Northwest Dersim’. This book was
banned. Mr. Varis faced the risk of imprisonment. We are not sure
whether the case is still pending or not. However, Article 305 of the
New Turkish Penal Code will provide prosecutors with a new legal
device to prevent an open and democratic debate from taking place in
Turkey on two fundamental issues: the Armenian Genocide and the
presence (occupation) of Turkish troops in Cyprus(8).Part l 4th Part
Amnesty International issued an action alert on May 13 considering
that the imposing of criminal penalty for statements that acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide as a historical fact or call for the withdrawal
of Turkish troops from Cyprus `would be a clear breach of
international standards safeguarding freedom of expression.’ (9)
(1) Pallone urges state department to condemn new Turkish Penal Code
punishing Turks who object to government’s policy toward Armenia &
Cyprus. Retrieved 14-12-2004.
(2) Lungescu, O. Turkey’s quest to join Europe. Retrieved 01-01-2005.
(3) Turkey: The Foreign Affairs Committee against the European
Parliament. Retrieved 02-01-2005.
(4) European Parliament calls on Turkey to explicitly recognize the
Armenian Genocide. Retrieved 02-01-2005.
(5) Haraszti, M. Review of the Draft Turkish Penal Code: Freedom of
Media Concerns. Retrieved 19-05-2005.
(6) Turkey still far from European standards of Press Freedom.
Retrieved 02-01-2005.
(7) IPA calls for amendment to Penal Code to allow for free
expression on Armenian genocide. Retrieved 02-01-2005.
(8) New Turkish Penal Code: A long way to freedom of expression.
Retrieved 02-01-2005.
(9) Turkey: Freedom of expression/torture/prisoners of conscience.
Retrieved 19-05-2005.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Newropeans Magazine
June 8 2005
Turkey legalizes the Denial of the Armenian Genocide – 4th Part –

Written by Houry Mayissian
Thursday, 09 June 2005
90 years have passed since Ottoman Turkey committed genocide against
its Christian Armenian subjects in 1915. Although several parliaments
have recognized the Armenian Genocide and many historians have
established that it is a historical fact, the Turkish government
still refuses to acknowledge it. It has, in the past 90 years,
implemented several methods to deny the genocide ever happened. The
latest of these measures was the recent criminalization of the
acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide in the new Turkish Penal
Code, which took effect on June 1.
Vagueness in the article
The problem with article 305 of the new Turkish Penal Code is not
only the limitations it imposes on freedom of expression; the law is
flawed in itself, because it is vague. In its November 13th 2004
issue, The Economist writes: `… an article of the new penal code
approved in September…provides for up to ten years’ jail for those
who engage in unspecified `activities’ against the `national
interest.’ What might such activities be?'(1) The article mentions
the examples included in the explanatory report and questions their
validity.
The fourth paragraph of article 305 specifies that the term
fundamental national interests means `independence, territorial
integrity, national security and the fundamental qualities defined in
the Constitution of the Republic.'(2)
The explanatory report mentions that the function of this last
paragraph is to serve as a `limiting criterion’, because `the concept
of `fundamental national interests’ may be very wide both from the
point of view of its content and its scope.’ The definition given for
`fundamental national interests’ is unclear. Furthermore, even though
several limiting criteria are mentioned in the law, the explanatory
report in no way illustrates how affirmation of the Armenian Genocide
would jeopardize any of the above-mentioned criteria. Moreover, the
law talks about benefits and promises, but does not mention or
clearly define what such benefits might be.
A Violation of freedom of expression
In addition to being flawed, article 305 of the new Turkish penal
code constitutes a serious violation of freedom of expression, an
essential pillar for a democratic society. By legalizing denial of
the Armenian Genocide the Turkish Government not only distorts
historical realities, it also prohibits discussion and affirmation of
the fact of the Armenian Genocide.
The document this article depends upon to make its argument is the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights for several
reasons: Turkey adopted the new penal code as a condition by the
European Union to start accession talks; Turkey has ratified this
document in 1954(3); the European Commission and the Parliament have
regarded the article in violation of the said convention.
Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights states: `Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers.'(3) Thus, by banning affirmation of the
Armenian Genocide, the Turkish Government infringes on the freedom to
receive and impart information and ideas, which violates the above
article ratified by the Turkish government itself. Moreover, the
article casts doubt on how seriously the Turkish government respects
the conventions of the European Union, a body it has been trying to
join for long.
Having said the above, it should be acknowledged that in no country
in the world absolute freedom of expression can be ensured.
Furthermore, the concept of freedom of expression in itself is broad
and subject to many interpretations. For this purpose, in addition to
the above Convention, I also base my critique of article 305 on the
theory of Clear and Present Danger.
(1) Haunted by the past. The Economist (2004, November 13). 34-37
(2) Haraszti, M. Review of the Draft Turkish Penal Code: Freedom of
Media Concerns. Retrieved 19-05-2005.
(3) Human Rights Watch. (1999). Violations of free expression in
Turkey

Newropeans Magazine
June 10 2005
Turkey legalizes the Denial of the Armenian Genocide – 5th Part –

Written by Houry Mayissian
Friday, 10 June 2005
90 years have passed since Ottoman Turkey committed genocide against
its Christian Armenian subjects in 1915. Although several parliaments
have recognized the Armenian Genocide and many historians have
established that it is a historical fact, the Turkish government
still refuses to acknowledge it. It has, in the past 90 years,
implemented several methods to deny the genocide ever happened. The
latest of these measures was the recent criminalization of the
acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide in the new Turkish Penal
Code, which took effect on June 1.
The Clear and Present Danger test, as it is called, was first
proposed in 1919 by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in his
interpretations of the First Amendment of the United States’
Constitution (1). In order to determine whether the speech at hand is
constitutional, `the Clear and Present Danger test asked not whether
the words had a bad tendency but rather `whether the words used are
used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive
evils that Congress has a right to prevent” (1)
Advocates of this theory of freedom of expression believe that it is
`the best available judicial test for striking a proper balance
between protection of the marketplace of ideas and the need to
protect the national security and the publics order.'(2) The
opponents to this theory, on the other hand, argue that the test is
`open to widely varying interpretations’ and provides `little or no
protection to radical speech in times of political stress’ (2). While
this argument makes a logical point, I personally believe, that if
exercised with care, the above test would be efficient in both
securing freedom of expression to the citizens of a country and
protecting its national security, especially in times of war.
Although the Clear and Present Danger test is an interpretation of
the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it can be applied to
other countries as a means of regulating government intervention in
the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, using this test in
the case of article 305 is appropriate, because the article itself is
based on the need to protect `fundamental national interests’. Thus,
based on this concept, article 305 would have been justifiable if
recognition of the Armenian Genocide truly constituted a `clear and
present danger’ for Turkey. Not only the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide constitutes no such danger to Turkey, its denial threatens
one of the country’s basic national interests as announced by Turkey
itself: its membership to the European Union. Recent developments
show that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey will be
one of the issues on the agenda of accession talks. In fact, French
Foreign Minister Michel Barnier told the French RTL radio in December
that France will include the issue of the Armenian Genocide in the
accession talks that are due to start with Turkey in October 2005
(3). Barnier repeated his statement on a number of different
occasion, the latest being in May (4). Similar statements by other EU
officials and member countries indicate that denial of the Armenian
Genocide might in fact become a headache, causing more danger to
Turkey, than its recognition.
In conclusion, the adoption of article 305 of the Turkish Penal Code
has no justification; the argument that recognition of the Armenian
Genocide is a threat against national interests has no basis. In
addition, the article contains serious shortcomings that might lead
to its abuse by the government. The article has been criticized by
the European Parliament and Commission, as well as a number of
non-governmental organizations and has been regarded as an
infringement on freedom of expression. The article is not the only
attempt by the Turkish Government to deny the Armenian Genocide, but
its significance lies in the fact that it legalizes this denial.
Finally, the article violates the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights, a document Turkey has ratified and is
obliged to respect. For all the above reasons, the explanatory report
citing the Armenian Genocide example (this paper has not dealt with
the Cyprus issue) should be deleted.
(1) Kersch, K. I. (2003). Freedom Of Speech: Rights and Liberties
Under The Law. California: ABC-CLIO(2) Cohen, J. & Gleason, T. W.
(1990). Social Research in Communication And Law. California: Sage
Publications
(3) France to Include `Armenian Genocide’ in Turkey’s EU bid talks:
FM. Retrieved 19-01-2005.
(4)

A1plus
| 14:55:19 | 10-06-2005 | Official |
OMBUDSMAN LEFT FOR STRASBURG
On the invitation of the Director of the COE Ombudsman Committee Pierre
Henry Imberg, RA Ombudsman Larissa Alaverdyan left for Strasburg to take
part in the international seminar `Defense of Human Rights during the Combat
Against Terrorism’. From the 46 member countries of COE only 30 experts have
received the invitation to take part in the seminar organized by the COE.
While discussing the main issue – observation of the defense of human rights
on the contest of the combat against terrorism, two documents are to be
discussed – `Principles of Regulating the Fields of the Human Rights and
Combat Against Terrorism’ and `Protection of the Victims of Terror’ which
were adopted by the COE in July 2002 and March 2005 respectively.
The possibility of experience exchange of national institutions in this
field and the issues of giving aid to the victims of terror will also be at
the center of the European experts’ attention.
The further activity of the COE in connection with the successful experience
realized by its member countries will also be discussed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A1plus
| 14:04:19 | 10-06-2005 | Official |
PROBLEM OF 0.5% SOLVED
Today Robert Kocharyan had a working meeting with Labor and Social Affairs
Minister Aghvan Vardanyan.
The main issues of the meeting were the old-age pension reforms, poverty and
family pensions, and the results of the newly-created Labor State
Inspectorate and the introduction of the social cards.
Employment issues have also been discussed. According to the Ministry data,
since the beginning of the year the unemployment rate has been reduced by
0.5% and now 135 thousand people instead of 142 are looking for jobs.
The Minister has also represented the course of the carrying out of the
order about adding by 5000 the premium of the Great Patriotic War veterans.
A reference has also been made to the possible variants of adding the
pensions of the other veterans too.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RA OMBUDSMAN TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR “HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION IN STRUGGLE AGAINST TERRORISM” IN STRASBURG
YEREVAN, June 10. /ARKA/. RA Ombudsman Larisa Alaverdyan will
participate in the international seminar “Human Rights Protection in
Struggle against Terrorism” in Strasburg. According to the Department
for Information and Public Relations of the RA Ombudsman’s Office,
Alaverdyan left for Strasburg by the invitation of Pier-Anri Imber,
the General Prosecutor of the Coordinating Committee of the Council of
Europe for Human Rights. In the context of the discussions of the main
issue – combination of human rights protection with struggle against
terrorism- the participants of the session will touch upon the issues
of application of two documents of the Council of Europe: “Governing
Principles in the Sphere of Human Rights and Struggle against
Terrorism” and “Protection of Victims of Terrorist Attacks”, adopted
correspondingly in July 2002 and March 2005. Rendering assistance to
the victims of terrorist attacks and the possibility to exchange
experience between national institutes in that sphere will be in the
center of the attention of European experts. It’s planned to discuss
the further activity of the Council of Europe in that direction in
view of successful experience of countries-members of the Council of
Europe.
To participate in the seminar organized by the Council of Europe for
top officials, only 30 experts out of 46 countries-members of the
Council of Europe were invited. A.H. –0–

TORONTO (CP) – Teenagers who are forced to confront the cruel reality
of a terminal illness will typically find some solace in childhood’s
usual creature comforts: an Xbox, a trip to Disneyland or a handshake
with a hockey player.
Kelly Clarke chose to visit the one man who holds her future in his
hands.
When the Make-A-Wish Foundation offered to grant her a wish, the
16-year-old Clarke, who suffers from a rare and terminal form of
adolescent epilepsy, asked to meet a Toronto doctor whose pioneering
research represents her best hope for a better life.
That wish came true Thursday after Clarke and her parents made the
4,800-kilometre journey from Kingsland, England, to Canada’s most
populous city to meet Berge Minassian, a neurologist at the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto.
“I wanted to find out things about my illness,” Clarke said of her
trip. “I’d like some advice, (to know) how far the research is, how
well he thinks I’m doing.”
Clarke’s odyssey began more than three years ago, when her mother and
stepfather began the difficult task of researching a rare condition
that neither they nor anyone else in the medical community seemed to
know anything about.
Doctors eventually identified Clarke’s condition as Lafora disease – a
form of epilepsy that occurs during early adolescence and is
characterized by seizures and progressive neurological degeneration.
Over the course of their Internet research, Clarke’s parents found one
name that kept popping up as a leader in the field – Minassian, a
Toronto neurologist who had successfully identified two genes used to
diagnose the disease.
When Clarke learned Make-A-Wish was prepared to help, as it does with
countless children around the world who face life-threatening
conditions, she opted to fly halfway around the world to find out what
– if anything – her future holds.
“He said there’s this much hope,” Clarke said, holding up her thumb
and index finger.
“I don’t know what the hope is – a cure, extra time, a diet, if he’s
found something – (but) he’s got a plan.”
Clarke’s wish came as a surprise to Andrea Dicks, who manages the
foundation’s wish-granting program and has grown accustomed to kids
asking for computers, or trips around the world, or the chance to meet
someone famous or be a model for a day.
“I couldn’t believe it when it came across my desk,” Dicks said.
“It’s not the wish you would typically think a 16-year-old girl would
wish for … Kelly is obviously just a very kind individual and she
wants to be able to help other individuals who have her condition as
well.”
As part of Thursday’s official visit to the Hospital for Sick
Children, Clarke presented Minassian with a check for over $1,500,
raised by her former classmates to help fund further research.
Clarke was diagnosed with Lafora disease in 2002, but only learned
about the illness from her parents 18 months later. She has had to
leave school and has lost contact with some of her friends, and
experiences twitches and memory lapses.
She says she will eventually end up in a wheelchair, suffer more
frequent seizures and need help with most of her daily activities. She
will not be able to have children and can’t be left home alone.
Minassian said he’s cheered by the fact Clarke is in “good shape right
now,” and noted that her anti-seizure medication has been effective at
holding off the seizures.
Eventually, however, those diagnosed with Lafora suffer more frequent
seizures, as well as dementia and visual hallucinations. Patients
usually die within 10 years of being diagnosed, Minassian said.
“That’s the way it is today,” he said. “There’s always tomorrow.”
Clarke said her meetings with Minassian, as well as others who are
working to find a cure for the disease, has helped to restore her
optimism.
“It makes you think you’re not the only one,” she said.
Clarke said she’s choosing to focus on her friends and boyfriend
Jamie, and plans to visit the CN Tower and Niagara Falls and get some
shopping in while she’s in Toronto.
“I don’t like to get upset about it because I’ve got lots of friends
and I’ve got a great boyfriend,” she said.
“I’ve got quite a lot of hope and I don’t like to give up yet, I try
not to. Otherwise, you’ve got nothing really, have you?”
© The Canadian Press, 2005

PRESS RELEASE
KCET, public television for Southern and Central California
June 10, 2005
Contact: Laurel Lambert
(323) 953-5308
4401 Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Web:
MARAL CHALIAN JOINS KCET AS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT
Maral Chalian has been appointed director, development at KCET, public
television for Southern and Central California. Reporting to KCET
president and CEO Al Jerome, she will be responsible for leading a
fundraising team covering the communities of Glendale, Burbank, La
Canada , Bakersfield, and areas of Ventura County and the San Fernando
Valley. Chalian was a member of KCETs Community Advisory Board from
1994 to 2001.
Since 1993, Chalian has been working at the United Armenian Fund,
where she was special programs manager, obtaining grants and in-kind
contributions to provide relief for Armenia. Chalians work garnered
international attention and inspired two speaking invitations on the
topic of philanthropy at the United Nations in 2001 and 2002.
In 2002, Chalian was awarded the Women in Business Award by the
California State Legislature as the Non-Profit Employee of the Year.
# # #

A!plus
| 18:40:21 | 10-06-2005 | Politics |
OMBUDSMAN IS DEFENCELESS
Today the party «New Times» invited the political powers to represent them
the draft defending the Ombudsman. Those invited were offered two drafts,
where the main idea was as follow, «We strictly condemn any encroachment
towards the Ombudsman Institute which is the visiting card of the democratic
countries. We consider it another intervention of the criminal elements into
the political processes».
Let us remind you that the Ombudsman has disagreements with the both with
the legislative and with the executive powers. There have been different
encroachments towards the structure recently. In Particular, on May 26
Larissa Alaverdyan’s co-worker Serob Antinyan was arrested, and that very
day the processor of one of the computers in the office where precious
information was kept disappeared.
Although there were different ideas about the drafts, the overwhelming
majority of the political parties offered that the Ombudsman must be
defended as `attacking’ the state institute trying to act within the
framework of law is already becoming a habit.
Let us also add that the announcement of the parties in defence of the
Ombudsman will be ready in a week.