Author: Torgomian Varazdat

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FROM INSIDE ARMENIA

AZG Armenian Daily
20/03/2008

Opinion

Since Tuesday’s presidential elections in Armenia, I have received a
number of well-intentioned e-mails from diasporan Armenians who have
strong opinions about the outcome, and the methods with which that
outcome was reached. Many of these authors have used language bordering
on the hysterical and offensive to characterize the current situation
in Armenia. Some state that they have received their information from
sources within Armenia, including a number of "opposition" websites.

Well, since I am actually in Armenia, I would like to explain a
few things, which may not occur to those who don’t live here. And
as a resident of this country for the past seven years, I think I
have earned the right to make certain observations and criticisms
emanating from personal experiences.

Armenia is not the United States. Therefore, there is no accepted
tradition or institutional culture when it comes to many political
activities to which Americans are accustomed. Democracy and democratic
principles in Armenia are developing and progressing. It may not be
happening at a pace that is acceptable to many; nevertheless, it is
happening. Notwithstanding the pace, however, each and every Armenian,
whether in Armenia or in the diaspora, has a solemn responsibility
to support and encourage the maintenance, strength and endurance of
our statehood.

Stability for our state is a high priority, one that may be difficult
to comprehend for anyone or any people who, having enjoyed free and
independent statehood for centuries, thus take it for granted. In
the U.S., we accept America as no longer an experiment – it is a
fait accompli. By contrast, Armenia is at a crossroads, and our
very survival is at stake. Turkey continues its illegal blockade
of Armenia and refuses to establish diplomatic ties with us. We are
still technically at war, and although the cease-fire with Azerbaijan
has held for more than 10 years, it is still a fragile and tenuous
one. The threat of resuming hostilities and aggression by the Azeris
is one that we live with every day, and has been one of the reasons,
I believe, that unlike Georgia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet
countries, Armenia has persevered and remained free of major civic
unrest in recent years. We understand that unity is our weapon and our
strength. And although internally we may have sharp disagreements and
heated political arguments, Armenians know well that at the end of the
day, no one, no nation, no country and no international organization
can be relied upon to save us this time from complete annihilation. I
am sure many of you would agree.

It is true, the elections were not flawless.

Deficiencies of all sorts were observed and are an unfortunate
reality. However, the constitution of the Republic of Armenia worked:
scheduled elections did take place, and a president who is term-limited
is willingly stepping aside and giving up the power entrusted to
him by the people. This may no longer be a revolutionary concept in
California, Massachusetts, or Illinois, but for the former Soviet
Union, it’s an important, if symbolic, step. (For those who need
further info, see Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc.)

Furthermore, international observers from the United States,
Europe and Russia were present before and during the election
to monitor the campaign atmosphere and balloting. They issued an
11-page report on the day following the elections. You can read it
here: [See page A8 for the executive
summary.] The report is available in English and Armenian, and
was prepared by the OSCE/ODIHR monitoring mission. The report is
critical in some areas, and offers praise in others, which was to
be expected. In a nutshell, the monitors presented their findings,
stating that the 2008 presidential elections were "mostly in line
with international commitments."

This is not an apologia. We all want Armenia to do better. We all
wait for the day when elections in Armenia are completely fair and
transparent. And that day will come when our citizens fully become
aware of their rights and responsibilities, and when the western
"culture" of elections, voting, campaigning and political platforms
become better integrated into Armenian society.

But just because that day is not here yet, does not mean that we throw
up our arms, give up on democracy and think it merely an experiment
gone bad. It has been said that democracy is a very bad form of
government – it’s just much better than anything else that’s been
tried in history. It would be hard to find anyone today, whether the
authorities of Armenia or the opposition, who would seriously argue
that abandoning our republican form of government because we haven’t
yet perfected it, is a logical or preferred path to follow.

We must therefore take great care before making frantic accusations,
for they are heard by us as well as our adversaries. The mental
laziness of giving in to wild conspiracies does not serve the
long-term endurance of Armenia or the diaspora. For the first time
in more than 600 years, Armenia is free and independent, and we are
therefore obligated to place our national interests ahead of our
personal gains or aspirations.

By Fr. Ktrij Devejian

Fr. Ktrij Devejian is the foreign press secretary of the Catholicate
of All Armenians, at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Born and
educated in the United States, Fr. Devejian has lived in Armenia for
the past seven years.

POLITICAL NIHILISM
Lilit Poghosyan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
March 18, 2008

Yesterday evening, exhausting the agenda of the first sitting of
the regular four-day session, the National Assembly discussed the
draft law on introducing changes in the RA law on "Rallies, Marches
and Demonstrations".

In response to our questions, RPA Press Secretary EDUARD SHARMAZANOV
substantiates the Government’s legal initiative.

"The March 1 events came to show once again that democracy must not
be confused with demagogy, and freedom must not be confused with
impunity. Yes, we have a credo and that credo is building a state
based upon the values of democracy. But after all, it is necessary to
realize that when we speak about democracy, it first of all implies
diversity of opinions and rivalry of ideas. And such rivalry of ideas
must be within the limits of political ethics.

The meetings continuously held by one of the candidates since
September were not political rallies, so to say; they were rather
demagogic protests leading to despotism and have actually nothing to
do with democracy.

Was it democracy when, speaking on behalf of the people, the
demonstration leaders cursed all those who held different opinions
and called them scum, sowed hostility and intolerance towards the
"dissidents", thus violating one of the fundamental principles of
democracy i.e. diversity of opinions?

What happened after February 19 was unconditionally beyond the logic
of a civilized struggle. The post-electoral developments came to
show that it was necessary to regulate the sphere, and introducing
amendments to law on "Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations" was vital.

The marches, rallies and demonstrations in which, according to the
data of the Police and the National Security Agencies, there were
calls for violence and the violent breach of the constitutional order,
i.e. what we saw during the rallies organized by the pro-Ter-Petrosyan
forces beginning September, should not be authorized. No democratic
country has ever moved forward towards the path of nihilism and denial.

We must do everything in a manner prescribed by law in order to rule
out political extremism in our country, and the forces preaching
extremism must have no place on our political arena. Here, a lot has
to be done both by the legislative and executive bodies, as well as
the judicial authority and first of all – our society and the civil
society institutions."

"What about the structures ‘spreading democracy’? Won’t they condemn
the adoption of the Resolution in future?"

"Armenia is an independent and sovereign state which has adopted the
policy of democratic reforms, and any RA citizen, despite his position,
must comply with the Constitution and the laws of our country. As to
what standards are applied by other countries, it’s up to them.

What’s more, I believe that both the American and European structures
realize that the RA legislation is quite democratic, actually more
democratic in comparison with some Western countries.

Second, the electoral process in Armenia was really, democratic and
the main violations were observed in the post-electoral period. I
don’t imagine unauthorized meetings held in any democratic country
for 9 days, without the intervention of the authorities."

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY: "RUSSIA ALONG WITH THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE IS GOING TO CONTINUE ACTIVE MEDIATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF OSCE MINSK GROUP"

Today
cs/43754.html
March 17 2008
Azerbaijan

Official Moscow considers resolution on Nagorno Karabakh, adopted in
the UN General Assembly, to comply only with Baku interests, while
saying that Russia will continue efforts to resolve the situation in
the region.

"The countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group on the settlement of
Nagorno Karabakh conflict (which includes the United States, France
and Russia) voted against the said document.

The joint announcement on the motives of voting explains their position
by the narrowness, irrelevance and ineffectiveness of the step of the
Azerbaijani side. This position has been presented to this country
for more than once", the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry,
released on Saturday says, according to Interfax.

"In particular, the draft resolution includes only some of the basic
principles of settlement, meeting only Azerbaijan’s needs, without
referring to the definition of the final legal status of Nagorno
Karabakh by means of a plebiscite among its population for free and
real expression of its will", the Russian Foreign Ministry says.

"This approach made the draft unacceptable for Armenia and deteriorated
prospects of the soonest resumption of Armenian-Azerbaijani talks
on Nagorno Karabakh conflict following the inauguration of the new
President of Armenia", the statement reads.

"Russia along with the United States and France is ready to continue
active mediation in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group for the
coordination of basic principles of settlement, which will allow
to bring back stability and peace to this South Caucasus region",
the statement says.

It should be reminded that the UN General Assembly held a voting
regarding the Baku-initiated resolution on Nagorno Karabakh. The
document was supported by 39 delegation, 7 voted against and 100
abstained from voting.

ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT DISCUSSES DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO LAW ON RALLIES, DEMONSTRATIONS AND PROCESSIONS

arminfo
2008-03-17 20:42:00

ArmInfo. Today the Armenian Parliament began to discuss the first
reading of draft amendments to the law on rallies, demonstrations
and processions.

One of the authors of the amendments, MP Rafik Petrossyan says
that the Mar 1 events in Yerevan have become a bitter lesson for
everybody. 8 people were killed and lots of people wounded on that
day, the state sustained big damage, the political situation in the
country was destabilized. The events have shown that the existing
law needs revision. It is necessary to revise some points of the law
so as to exclude the possibility of anti-constitutional actions and
to guarantee the safety of people in the future. The amendments are
based on the principles of human rights and freedoms, particularly,
the authors refer to articles 11 and 16 of European Convention n
Human Rights and considered the experience of such countries as Italy,
Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Finland, Romania, Moldova.

Particularly, the authors are planning to amend articles 9, 10,
12 and 14 of the law. Thus, according to the amendment to Article
9 the authorities can restrict organization and holding of rallies,
demonstrations and processions if in case of reliable information these
activities may threaten the state security, cause violation of public
order, and violation of the constitutional rights of citizens. It
is extremely important that the body restricting the organization of
the activities should possess absolutely reliable information. This
information must be told to the Police and the National Security
Service. At the same time, the organizers of the activities may
dispute the decision on legal waivers. If the presented information is
ungrounded, the leaders of the Police and National Security Service
will be responsible for this. Article 10 of the law is also to be
amended: the organizers of the social events are obliged to inform
the local authorities 3-5 days prior to holding the events. Similar
amendments are also introduced to other articles of the law in force.

Diplomatic Traffic, DC
March 16 2008

Dim Prospects for Sarkissian after Armenia’s Post-election Violence

by Blanka Hancilova

The violent suppression of the opposition rally on 1-2 March has
opened up a gaping schism in the Armenian body politic. Following the
deaths of at least several dozen protesters, the Kocharyan-Sarkissian
duo is bound to lose some supporters, while some neutral voters may
chose to join the opposition. The battle for power may be drawn out,
and its conclusion is far from certain but, so far, it is evident
that the foundations of the ruling regime have been profoundly
shaken.

BACKGROUND: The 19 February 2008 presidential election in Armenia was
expected to see a smooth transfer of power from the current
president, Robert Kocharyan, to his long-time ally and current prime
minister, Serzh Sarkissian. But Armenia’s first president turned
opposition leader after a long absence from the political scene,
Levon Ter-Petrossian, turned it into a bitter contest, drawing his
supporters to the streets in record numbers, a sight unseen in
Yerevan since the 1990s. According to official results, Serzh
Sarkissian won the election in the first round, securing 52.8 per
cent of the cast, while Ter-Petrossian trailed behind with 21.5 per
cent.

The opposition alleges that mass fraud had taken place. Although
independent information is hard to come by, Human Rights Watch
documented the bullying and intimidation of opposition observers. On
election day, numerous violent incidents and irregularities were
reported such as vote buying, `carousel’ voting (where the same
people vote repeatedly), irregularities in the military’s voting and,
crucially, in vote counting.

Nevertheless, according to the preliminary findings of the OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election
observation mission, the election `was administered mostly in line
with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards.’ Despite
this finding, opposition parties heavily criticized the conduct of
the elections.

The opposition contested the results and hit the streets for 11 days
of non-stop protests. Many other opposition leaders rallied behind
Ter-Petrossian. At the same time, a number of opposition politicians
were detained and some senior foreign ministry officials and
prosecutors, who publicly backed the opposition, were dismissed.

As the government felt increasingly insecure, it offered to set up a
coalition government and managed to co-opt one of the most
influential figures – former National Assembly Speaker and Chair of
the `Orinats Yerkir’ party, 40 year-old Arthur Baghdasarian.
Following this success, in the early hours of 1 March, the police
dispersed a rally at Yerevan’s Liberty Square and Ter-Petrossian was
placed under de facto house arrest.

Yerevan Violence

Notwithstanding the events earlier in the morning, later in the day
protesters gathered in Miasniakian square, in the vicinity of the City
Administration Hall and the embassies of France, Italy and Russia.
During the day, there were possibly several hundred thousand people
waiting for Ter-Petrossian, but also a strong police, interior forces
and army presence.

By the evening, the atmosphere had become extremely tense and a
violent standoff was widely expected. At the same time, the
opposition leaders that had organized the rally disavowed and
condemned incidents of violence, blaming them on government
provocateurs. Small-scale violent incidents started to take place,
and the looting of shops in downtown Yerevan also began. In the
evening, about 10,000 protesters were still present at the square,
burning cars and engaged in running battles with the security forces.

Late on 1 March, outgoing President Kocharyan introduced a state of
emergency for 20 days, which was upheld by the parliament. Media
freedoms, freedom of assembly and political activity remain
suspended.

Shortly after emergency rule was declared, security forces advanced
towards the protesters and, according to official information, a
violent standoff occurred which left at least eight people dead and
about two hundred injured. Unofficial sources speak of at least 20
dead, and possibly up to 50.

Subsequent international reactions criticized the government for use
of excessive force and violence to disperse demonstrators.

IMPLICATIONS: Ter-Petrossian’s success in running a popular campaign
has shaken the governing Kocharyan-Sarkissian duo which, after ten
years in power, seems to have grossly underestimated the extent of
public dissatisfaction with the regime. The authorities clearly did
not expect Ter-Petrossian to be capable of mustering a wave of
popular protests, particularly given that he remains unpopular
amongst many Armenians who remember the economic hardships that
plagued his presidency in 1990s, while many disapprove of his
position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, not only did he
manage to attract people to the streets, but he has also managed to
coalesce the fractious opposition political forces around him and,
moreover, against the ruling regime. All of this occurred without
Ter-Petrossian offering any specific program of change apart from a
change of regime from the Kocharyan-Sarkissian `kleptocracy’.
Especially worrying for Kocharyan and Sarkissian, who both come from
Nagorno-Karabakh, were the signs of defections from the Yerevan elite
in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the prosecutor’s office.

The electoral success, even if contested by the opposition, could
have given Sarkissian a chance to re-assert control by playing on the
opposition’s lack of internal coherence and a united program.
Co-opting Arthur Baghdasarian was an important step in this regard.
On the other hand, it is not clear how much power Baghdasarian now
commands. Ter-Petrossian has been claiming for some time now that
Baghdasarian’s supporters are joining him and Baghdasarian’s u-turn
is unlikely to fare well with his voters.

On the other hand, the external situation played in the regime’s
hands. The lack of foreign media attention to Armenia, the largely
benevolent and superficial reports of international observers, and
the keen interest of all neighbors and major powers to prevent any
new hotspot from emerging made it easier for the government to quell
the opposition tide. However, the death of protesters is a watershed
which has made Armenia’s political future all too uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS: It is too early to tell how the political situation in
Armenia will develop. However, several observations can be offered.
To begin with, the options of the incumbent regime seem to be very
limited. It is likely to try to run things `as usual’, put the blame
for post-electoral violence on the opposition led by Ter-Petrossian
and, step-by-step, isolate him. Co-opting Baghdasarian was one of the
first steps in this direction. It remains to be seen whether
Baghdasarian will be able to recover his credibility with his
electorate and whether he will emerge as a serious contender for
high-level political posts in the future.

But even if Sarkissian succeeds in calming the situation down, and
keeps himself in power, his credibility has been severely undermined.
Even many of his current supporters are likely to blame him for the
events of 1-2 March for years to come. It is possible that the whole
institution of the presidency could be weakened as a result, and that
power will increasingly gravitate to the National Assembly.

The outgoing president, Robert Kocharyan, has not announced his
future plans, but it is widely believed that he will implement the
`Russian scenario’ and replace Sarkissian as prime minister. By doing
so, he will be able to contribute to the consolidation of his and
Sarkissian’s power.

As for Ter-Petrossian, it remains to be seen whether his supporters
will be able to sustain a protracted public protest when the state of
emergency lifts. Should he be unsuccessful, he may have lost possibly
his last chance to re-enter Armenian politics. So far, many of his
supporters have been imprisoned, and some charged with attempting a
coup d’état. Many went into hiding, fearing reprisals from the
authorities.

In the short term, Armenia is likely to remain volatile, and the
possibility of renewed violence is present. In the mid-term, two
scenarios can be envisaged: stabilization with a broad coalition
government with simmering discontent and pressures to `re-open’ the
political and media space; or increasingly hard authoritarianism,
essentially military rule, keeping the opposition in jail.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Blanka Hancilova is analyst of international
relations with a focus on the CIS and the co-founder of Apreco
Consulting Group.

p?ID=655

Cornell University, The Cornell Daily Sun, NY
March 16 2008

A New Outlook? Bird’s Eye View

March 16, 2008 – 12:20am
By Rob Coniglio

Since its founding after World War I, the Turkish state has had a
clouded history with the integration of minorities. Founded out of
the multi-cultural Ottoman Empire, Turkey forged an ethnic identity
that came into conflict with Greek and Armenian residents of the
Anatolian Peninsula. The conflict with the Armenians is often
referred to as genocide, though the Turkish government steadfastly
refuses to characterize it that way. Kurds are spread across the
Middle East; they live in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. The Turkish Kurds
have had the most sustained conflict with their government. The
Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) has been fighting since the 1970’s and
in general, the Kurds in Turkey have faced legislation that
discriminates against them. For one, Kurdish language has been
severely restricted over the years. With the newfound autonomy of
Kurds in Iraq, the Turkish government has had to confront the
possibility of a strengthening separatist feeling and the possibility
of an independent Kurdistan. Such fears and increased PKK activity
have lead to Turkish military action in Iraqi Kurdistan. It seems,
however, that the Turkish government realizes the importance of
integrating Kurds and has adopted more forward-looking policies.

Then there is the question of the EU. Turkey has wanted to become an
EU member for quite some time but unfortunately, due to anti-Turkish
feeling in Europe, roadblock after roadblock have been put up to
block Turkey’s accession. Some have been legitimate, including the
EU’s demand to loosen restrictions on freedom of speech and better
incorporate the Kurdish minority. Other times, EU members are
stalling because they feel uncomfortable allowing a Muslim country
into `Europe.’ It is good then that Turkey is taking the policy-based
EU objections seriously, finally moving to offer an alternative to
insurgency to the Kurds by expanding economic investment and cultural
empowerment. Though these polices may result from necessity, they are
signs of progress.

Progress in Turkey has not been based in the secular elite. Instead,
it has come from the Justice and Development Party, Turkey’s Muslim
version of Europe’s Christian Democratic Parties. Given the paradigm
that we live in, it is ironic that the force behind modernization and
opening are the forces of political Islam. Granted, it is an
extremely moderate form, but the Justice and Development Party should
remind us that we do not live in a black and white world of `us
versus them.’ Turkish reforms should give us hope for the future, and
reinforce our confidence in a westward-looking Turkey, even if it is
one led by Islamists.

HAS NO LEGAL FORCE

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on March 15, 2008

The Resolution on the `Situation of the Occupied Territories of
Azerbaijan’ was approved yesterday, during the 62nd Session of the UN
General Assembly. There were 39 members voting for and 7 members voting
against the document; 100 representatives abstained from voting. The
initiative of Baku did not receive support by any EU member state; all
of them either voted against the Resolution or abstained from voting.

As mentioned by Armen Martirosyan, permanent representative of Armenia
in the United Nations, the US representative in the UN made a speech
before the voting, expressing his opinion against the document.
Azerbaijan didn’t manage to receive support by the members of `Islamic
Conference’ organization either. More than 20 member states of the
organization abstained from voting. Russia, France, India and other
countries were against the initiative too.

It should be noted that the document has no legal force.

OSCE MINSK GROUP DOES NOT SUPPORT DRAFT RESOLUTION ON SITUATION IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF AZERBAIJAN

arminfo
2008-03-14 14:33:00

ArmInfo. The co-chairmen of OSCE (Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe) on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict do not support the draft resolution on Situation in Occupied
Territories of Azerbaijan introduced to the UN General Assembly.

"The draft resolution will not gain our support. All the Minsk Group
co-chairman countries are of the same opinion. The draft does not
indicate on what both the chairmen and conflicting parties were
working towards," Yuri Merzlyakov, the Russian co-chairman of Minsk
Group said to TrendNews on 14 March.

Merzlyakov said that the Resolution is too one -sided. "The draft
resolution indicates those items which are interesting only to
Azerbaijan. The project is one-sided, unbalanced and not timely at
all. We all did not expect this," Merzlyakov said. ‘We propose either
to postpone the consideration of the given draft or just to try to
make it acceptable for adoption. The Azerbaijani delegation to New
York rejected our proposal referring to the absence of proofs. In
such situation all the Co-chair states have arrived to a conclusion
that they cannot support this draft. Although the 6th provision of
the document contains a very good paragraph that says how good the
Minsk Group co-chairs work’, Merzlyakov says.

"AUTHORITIES ARE DECISIVE IN NOT ALLOWING MASS DISORDERS ANY LONGER," SERGE SARGSIAN DECLARES

Noyan Tapan
March 14, 2008

YEREVAN, MARCH 14, NOYAN TAPAN. Within the framework of the criminal
case filed on the occasion of the events, which happened in Yerevan on
March 1-2 night, all the facts will be examined, the activities of the
authorities will be adequate, all those, who are guilty, are to give
an answer. This was mentioned by Serge Sargsian, the Prime Minister
and newly-elected President of the Republic of Armenia, in response
to the questions addressed to him through internet on March 13.

According to him, the authorities did much if not everything to avoid
the clash. However, in his conviction, "the opposition was prepared
for the clash" and in spite of all the calls of the police to keep
away from illegal acts, there was no response, moreover, "that was
considered a sign of weakness by certain people, who started to
beat policemen."

"I believe that the organizers merely became panic-stricken, when they
saw that the other candidates accepted my suggestion of cooperation
and made use of that. I promise that all those materials, which have
to do with this measure, will further become the property of society
and you will see who what instructions give," Serge Sargsian mentioned.

The laws and Constitution of Armenia, as well as the decisiveness
of the state officials and their professional capacities, according
to him, are the guarantees for disorders not to be repeated since
March 21: after the end of the term for the state of emergency. Serge
Sargsian made assertions that the authorities are resolute in not
allowing mass disorders in Armenia any longer. "I ask certain people
to understand what I say in a right way, not to say that they will do
that to oppose the Prime Minister, as this will already bring forth
very bad consequneces," Serge Sargsian mentioned.

EP ADOPTS RESOLUTION CALLING ON RA AUTHORITIES TO LIFT EMERGENCY RULE

PanARMENIAN.Net
14.03.2008 17:39 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "In the wake of the presidential elections in Armenia
on 19 February, a police crackdown against opposition supporters who
were peacefully contesting the results left eight dead and dozens
injured. A state of emergency was declared on 1 March and media
freedom has been restricted," says a European Parliament’s resolution,
adopted by 60 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.

The resolution deplores the loss of life, urges all parties to act
responsibly and calls on the authorities to investigate the violence
and take other measures.

The International Election Observation Mission stated that the
elections were "administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council
of Europe commitments and standards" but also identified a number of
concerns, in particular concerning the media’s commitment to providing
impartial information.

In the resolution, Parliament "expresses its concern at recent
developments in Armenia" and "calls on all parties to show openness and
restraint, to tone down statements and to engage in a constructive and
fruitful dialogue aimed at supporting and consolidating the country’s
democratic institutions".

It also calls "for a prompt, thorough, transparent, independent and
impartial investigation of the events of 1 March" and "for all those
responsible to be brought to justice and punished for misconduct and
criminal acts of violence". The Council and Commission should offer
EU assistance to help with the investigation.

The Armenian authorities are asked to lift the state of emergency,
restore media freedom and take all measures necessary to ensure a
return to normalcy. In addition, they are urged "to release citizens
detained for exercising their right of peaceful assembly".

Parliament points out that the EU’s Action Plan with Armenia
under the European Neighborhood Policy covers the strengthening
of democratic structures and the rule of law. In this context,
it urges the Commission "to focus its assistance to Armenia on the
independence of the judiciary and the training of police and security
forces" and calls on the Armenian authorities "to implement swiftly
all the remaining recommendations made by the International Election
Observation Mission", the EP press service reports.