"TRIAL OF SEVEN": TO WHAT EXTENT IS IT POLITICAL?
Armen Tsatouryan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
18 Dec 2008
Armenia
What if it doesn’t take place?
Over the recent days, everybody has focused on the "Case of 7" which,
as some people persistently claim, is an attempt of persecuting the
political figures carrying on a political struggle.
Based on this hypothesis, 7 individuals charged within the frameworks
of the case (Hakob Hakobyan, Myasnik Malkhasyan, Sasssoun Mikayelyan,
Alexander Arzoumanyan, Grigor Voskerchyan, Souren Sirounyan and
Shant Haroutyunyan) are already characterized by a number of American
diplomats as "political prisoners".
Let’s try to understand to what extent the above-mentioned individuals’
participation in the March 1 disorders fits the definition of the terms
"struggle for political views" and "political prisoner".
Obviously, most of the above-mentioned 7 individuals cannot even be
characterized as "political figures".
If we ignore A. Arzoumanyan and a couple of others, all the rest can
be classified among the commanders of the "fighters" who led the
post-electoral developments into a violent confrontation and bear
direct responsibility for the acts of violence. Furthermore, let’s
bear in mind that even the fact of being a political prisoner does
not safeguard anyone against remaining unpunished for participation
in acts of violence, car arson, attacks and lootings.
A question arises as to what will happen in our country if, after each
election organized on the state level, the representatives of any
political force or individual candidate imitate the scenario of the
"March 1" developments. Next time, we will clearly have 100 and more
vs. 10 victims.
Moreover, it was obvious to everybody that the candidate who suffered
defeat in the elections with his 21 percent of votes did not have a
moral right to dispute the election results. And what will happen
if the difference in the number ranges between 3 or 5 percent, as
characteristic of developed countries? In that case, large crowds of
voters will appear in the streets, and the subsequent acts of violence
will assume larger scales.
In our opinion, the acts for which the above-mentioned seven
individuals are held accountable not only have nothing in common with
the rights deriving from the term "political figure" but are also a
novelty for post-electoral developments in Armenia in terms of both
their volume and organization.
Let’s note that there were also mass rallies and medium-scale clashes
following the 1996 presidential elections. One can only imagine what
would happen if the participants in those events were accompanied
by the body-guards of Myasnik Malkhasyan and Hakob Hakobyan, and
possessed their "arsenal" an d "military experience". The building
of the National Assembly would simply turn into a pile of ashes,
and instead of the couple of MPs beaten by the demonstrators we would
have a lot of dead bodies.
The same can be said in case of drawing comparisons between the "case
of seven" and the "case of 31" and other political trials held in
1995-97, because in the latter case the activity of a whole political
party was prohibited, and the newspapers supporting it were closed.
And what is going on at present? On the one hand, the entire
opposition-run press is busy politicizing the ‘case of seven’ and
on the other hand the authorities and the forces supporting it are
trying to explain to the international community the elementary truth
that the task of punishing the perpetrators of violence is the direct
obligation of the state.
What happened on March 1 was a big dramatized event aimed at
acceding to power through criminally punishable methods. And such
event naturally had its organizers and leaders in the persons
of the individuals charged in the "frameworks of the "Case of
Seven". Therefore, no matter how much the latter may try to push the
political motives of their deeds to the foreground this is not the
reason for which they are going to be convicted.
There is a concrete number of individuals who were killed or injured,
as well as a20lot of materials testifying to the ravages, arsons and
other acts of violence whose perpetrators should be held accountable.
The tragic events of March 1 will maintain the strong effect of a
dangerous precedent unless the acts of violence receive a clear-cut
legal assessment and their organizers and concrete authors are called
to responsibility.