Prosecutor will be obliged to modify the charge
The trial of the "Case of Seven" proceeds on January 30. The seven oppositionists are charged under the articles that the PACE demands modifying. Will they really be released after the articles are modified? Head of the Armenian delegation to PACE David Harutyunyan answered this and other questions raised by "A1+".
-My answer should be evaluated in legal terms. The main purpose for changes is not to solve the issue of this or that person, rather to ensure what the Criminal Code must ensure, including human rights protection at the highest level, legal conviction and thirdly, as the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights stated, the fact that it is not permissible to bring a person to justice for expressing his political views. Since Mr. Hammarberg fairly considered that our criminal legislation provides an opportunity for a broad range of interpretations, it is necessary to clarify it. Any clarification that sets limits on the definition that we have today will have a retrospective force. Will it have an effect on the seven people who are currently going through legal proceedings or not? As a representative of the legislative body, I don't reserve any right to say yes or no. But I can definitely say that the prosecutor is obliged to modify the charge and make it correspond to the new propositions of the law, if they are accepted.
-Mr. Harutyunyan, you are going to head the Working Group, which must modify articles 225 and 300 of the Criminal Code. Do you think that the amendments will go into effect before the PACE April session? Will you make it in time?
-It is not the first time that I am leading a group that must work in a limited time frame. The group is accountable to the NA Speaker and must finish the job by February 19. This means that the group must hand the proposals to the NA Speaker by the evening of February 18. The past 12 years of my career allow me to say that I have met and always will meet the deadlines.
-Armenia is always faced with the issue of making legislative amendments when it comes time to implement the demands set by the PACE. Does this mean that the laws are to blame?
-I don't think that the laws are to blame. This is the difficult road that leads to functioning of democracy. Is it possible to facilitate? Yes, but not always.
-Mr. Harutyunyan, one of the demands set in the resolution continues to be the independence of mass media. The Resolution underlines that the tender for broadcasting licenses must not be postponed for baseless reasons. How is this demand going to be implemented?
-Work is already in progress. I can't say what the NA committee headed by Ashotyan has done, as well as the CoE experts, but I know that the work has started productively.
-If the law must be amended again, why was the law on "Television and Radio" changed in September, especially after the decision of the European Court on the suit filed by "A1+"? After all, the court ruled that the right of the company had been violated when the National Committee of Television and Radio had refused to present the bases for denying its participation in broadcasting tender.
-Unfortunately, I wasn't in Armenia at the time when the law was amended in order to state my position. Nevertheless, I will say that the judicial act and the amendments are not directly interwoven. The law has not been amended the way that it should have been amended. I believe that when you are rejected by the vote of any committee, by principle it is difficult to expect an explanation. Sometimes it is hard to say why you chose one of the ten candidates and denied the other nine. But in the case of "A1+", the European Court specifically underlined that it is extremely important for freedom of speech. This is an exclusive case when the committee must give an explanation so that the candidate understands why the committee made the decision that it made. This is the main idea of the Court's decision, and it must be finally established in our legislation.
-Does the ruling of the European Court presuppose that the RA courts must modify the verdicts that were reached based on the suits filed by "A1+"?
-First and foremost, this doesn't mean that it is not subject to modification, but it does mean that Armenian courts did not interpret the propositions of the law as they should have. When we talk about the errors of the court, we should say that there may be a verdict in the European Court that denies the previous verdict of the same court and consider that wrong. What the European Court says for this case is that the interpretation of the Armenian court on this or that law or proposition of the law does not correspond to the interpretations of the European Convention. The judicial act is not always modified because in some cases modifying doesn't lead anywhere.
-Armenia found itself in a difficult situation in Strasbourg three times in one year. How do you feel as head of the delegation?
-It is a hard transition period and I would prefer not to discuss such issues. Nevertheless, this is the reality.
- PACE Resolution 1643 states that the Monitoring Committee will continue the observation and propose additional measures to the Assembly in April. What does that mean?
-That is exactly why there is nothing stated in the Resolution. The Committee will discuss it and make a decision.
-What could be the possible sanctions...?
-I would ask to be more optimistic and talk about what steps should be taken for support. Let's not just criticize. -
Do you believe that Armenia will implement all the demands of the PACE until April?
-I never make predictions, but I am guided by the best-case scenario. I place issues and try to solve them. I don't always succeed, but that doesn't mean that my strategy is wrong.
Karine Asatryan
Strasbourg
