HAMMARBERG PREPARES AN EXTREMELY CRITICAL REPORT
Gevorg Haroutyunuan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
25 Nov 08
Armenia
In a press conference held Saturday evening, CoE Commissioner for
Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg said that during the meetings with
the Armenian officials he had introduced his negative assessments
with regard to the people accused or arrested within the frameworks
of the March 1 case.
"In the report I am going to prepare in the near future, I will have
to express a negative attitude towards the developments or rather the
absence of any developments in the sphere. My assessments with regard
to the lawsuits which have already finished and the ones (the case
of the 7 chief culprits) which are going to start very soon will be
negative. I don’t think the inquest and the preparation of the case
were sufficiently professional," the Commissioner mentioned.
As to the fact that the verdicts were returned based exclusively
upon the police testimonies, Thomas Hammarberg considered it
unacceptable. "I don’t at all insist that it is not absolutely allowed
to rely on the police testimonies in all the cases. However, in this
particular case, the tension and even the clashes were between the
public and the Police. In such circumstances, the testimonies of the
policemen against the demonstrators should always be furnished with
additional proofs and evidence.
In some cases, very20mild or very strict verdicts are returned for
similar offences. I am definitely disappointed by this situation."
The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights said that he would naturally
prepare his report on the case of the 7 individuals after the verdict
was returned.
However, continuing his speech, he announced, "I haven’t yet obtained
the substantial evidence that may serve as a basis for the court to
determine that the attempt to violate the constitutional order by using
force was made by those people. We will closely follow the proceeding.
When we get familiarized with the indictment, we will also express
our assessment as to whether there are sufficient grounds for sending
the case to the court. It is the seventh and even eighth month that
those people have been in detention; however, there are no proofs
confirming their responsibility for the crime. When I express my
attitude about all this, I will definitely be critical."
Th. Hammarberg said that it is still early to consider the people
accused of the March incidents as political prisoners; however,
he didn’t conceal his concerns over this issue either. "I hoped the
European countries’ mutual agreement and its reflection in the state
laws would make the issue of touching upon the political prisoners
unnecessary. The thing is that the term ‘political prisoner’ is
not even characterized or defined in the European Conven tion on
Human Rights.
Unfortunately, the situation here may create a necessity for defining
the meaning of the term ‘political prisoner’. There was such necessity
when, several years ago, Azerbaijan needed to clarify the situation
with some political prisoners."
Th. Hammarberg did not actually attach importance to the pro-opposition
activists’ speculations over the constitutionality of the initiative of
setting up a fact-finding group by the initiative of the President and
acting under the supervision of the NA interim committee. "I believe
all the doubts in this regard will be dissipated when the group
expresses willingness to work, as well as realizes the necessity of
cooperation in the process of conducting an impartial inquiry. The
activity of the fact-finding group will not really be easy in such
a polarized atmosphere. Some people are not even sure whether they
will be able to accomplish their tasks.
However, the three factors that the members of the group are
professionals, they are appointed by different political forces and
are independent creates a great likelihood that the group can work
effectively, as well as enjoy the assistance and trust of society. As
to the problem over the workplace of the fact-finding group, it can
easily be solved. I hope the option of meeting the eyewitness in some
other place is admissible if those people are reluctant to disclose
their identity. The succ essful activity of the group is conditioned
by the good will of its members."
With regard to the presence of the sniper in the centre of the
events, Th.
Hammarberg considered it quite natural. "The sniper’s participation
in the activities of the law enforcement agencies was not absolutely
an extraordinary phenomenon. If there are grounded concerns over
the possibility of acts of violence, the presence of the sniper
is justified.
The issue here is in what way and with what purpose his service is
used. In such situations, the activity of the sniper always attracts
special attention.
And as a summary result of his regular visit, the CoE Commissioner
presented his assessment on Armenia’s implementation of Resolutions #
1609 and 1620 prior to the January summit of the Council of Europe,
"Armenia’s issue has already been included in the agenda. Before
the summit, I have two concerns. First, whether there will really
start an impartial inquiry into the March events, and second, what’s
the situation with the people arrested on charges of organizing the
March events and how they are treated in the places of detention. I
am independent of the summit as much as the summit is independent of
me. However, whatever I report or present as an evidence, that will
have a significant impact on the conclusions of the summit.
I consider the application of sanctions possible. Depriving Armenia
of the right to vote may be one of such sanctions.
However, we still have some time, and that period is quite enough
for recording a certain progress. Today, I positively estimate the
initiative of setting up a fact-finding group. However, it is very
fragile. There is a need for assistance for ensuring the independence
and impartiality of the group. The bad news is that I am concerned
about the condition of the detainees and the level of the preparation
of the proceedings."