Tweet
Armenia: Ombudsman Clashes With President
By Zhanna Alexanian in Yerevan (CRS No. 287, 18-May-05)
Caucasus Reporting Service
18 May 2005
The government seeks to restrict the powers of Armenia's human rights
commissioner.
Only a year after her appointment, Armenia's first human rights
commissioner is in open confrontation with the authorities after
delivering a series of stinging verdicts on legal abuses in the
country.
"Back then [a year ago], everyone wondered if the ombudsman would be
independent from the president, but now it looks like the president
is trying to get independent from the ombudsman," the ombudsman Larisa
Alaverdian told IWPR.
When she was appointed in March 2004, following pressure from
international organisations, there was widespread scepticism that the
human rights ombudsman would have anything but a decorative role. But
after a series of bitter disagreements, in which she has rebuked the
government, President Kocharian petitioned the constitutional court
last month to restrict the mandate of his ombudsman Article 7 of the
Law on the Human Rights Defender declared that the ombudsman had
the right "to give recommendations to the court, guaranteeing the
enforcement of citizens' right to a fair trial, in accordance with
the constitution of the republic of Armenia and international norms".
However, in its May 6 verdict, the constitutional court declared this
article unconstitutional and divested the ombudsman of any right to
interfere with the judicial process.
Justice Minister David Harutunian, who testified in the constructional
court on behalf of the president, argued that the ombudsman had
effectively been given the right to undermine the independence
of judges.
"We do not want this kind of interference to continue," he told
IWPR. "Small concessions undermine the independence of the judicial
system. I believe this amendment will help the ombudsman find her
rightful place in the system."
But Alaverdian denied she had ever interfered with the administration
of justice or taken any sides, saying she had simply tried to safeguard
citizens against arbitrary judgments.
"The constitutional court decision was clearly biased," she said. "My
duty to issue recommendations to courts was limited to begin with. The
president goes by the documentation and explanations provided by his
justice minister.
They simply want to keep the ombudsman in the dark about the shady
dealings of the courts and judges.
"Instead of defending human rights, they are defending the judges
from the human rights commissioner. The majority of complaints we
receive are about court rulings and verdicts."
When the ombudsman's office published its human rights report for
2004 last month with strong criticism directed at law enforcement and
courts, it came under strong attack from different parts of government
and the legal system.
In one case, the ombudsman highlighted a human rights abuse when the
mayor of Yerevan auctioned off a plot of land that was still on valid
lease, and the tenant's rights had not been terminated. The mayor's
office described the ombudsman's actions as "unconstitutional",
and told her to stay away from property matters.
Alaverdian was similarly rebuffed by the legal department of the
president's office when she questioned the validity of government
actions in a property dispute, when citizens' property was forfeited
and land was seized for the needs of two ambitious government
construction programmes, the Northern Prospekt and Cascade in central
Yerevan.
Stepan Safarian, an analyst with the Armenian Centre for Strategic and
Ethnic Studies, believes that the Armenian authorities had expected
their ombudsman to be more obedient and were now trying to make her
so. "Whether the law was good or bad is beside the point. What matters
is that Armenia got an ombudsman, who proceeded to insist on certain
freedoms," he said.
Safarian recalled how in April 2004, when an opposition demonstration
was brutally dispersed by the police in central Yerevan, the ombudsman
put the government in an awkward position by claiming its actions
were unconstitutional and demanding an explanation from the president.
"The president appealed to the constitutional court because he did
not like this new institution which could influence the routine,
conveyor-belt administration of justice, making the outcome less
predictable," said Safarian.
Zhora Khachatrian, a legal adviser to Alaverdian, told IWPR the
ombudsman only had an oversight role in court cases.
"We are not contesting judgments, we are simply raising issues,
but they are saying this violated court independence," said
Khachatrian. "I've had at least one case when hearings were conducted
and a verdict passed in the absence of the defendant, which is against
all canons of judicial practice."
Khachatrian said the government was now embarked on a course of
restricting Alaverdian's role as much as possible. Already she is no
longer entitled to speak at government meetings. "From now on, you may
only ask questions," President Kocharian told her at a recent meeting.
"If this provision of the law is changed, then they are clearly
attempting to turn the ombudsman and her office into some kind of
compliant addendum to executive government," said Alaverdian.
"All this goes to show that the powers accorded to the human rights
ombudsman by law do not have substance," said Khachatrian. "The
ombudsman's position is strictly formal, or decorative. And whenever
the ombudsman speaks out, they claim it violates the constitution."
The Armenian Centre for Strategic and National Studies conducted a
poll in March which found that Alaverdian had gained popular support
over the last year. A total of 22.6 per cent of the sample said they
trusted the ombudsman the most as a human rights defender. By contrast
the president, parliament, government and courts all received approval
ratings of less than ten per cent.
"Restricted as the ombudsman is in her actions, she has won
considerable authority and confidence at the grassroots level,"
said Safarian.
Safarian said he was concerned that the government might be preparing
evidence to discredit the ombudsman, so that this autumn, following
constitutional reforms, Alaverdian can be replaced with a more
compliant figure.
By Zhanna Alexanian in Yerevan (CRS No. 287, 18-May-05)
Caucasus Reporting Service
18 May 2005
The government seeks to restrict the powers of Armenia's human rights
commissioner.
Only a year after her appointment, Armenia's first human rights
commissioner is in open confrontation with the authorities after
delivering a series of stinging verdicts on legal abuses in the
country.
"Back then [a year ago], everyone wondered if the ombudsman would be
independent from the president, but now it looks like the president
is trying to get independent from the ombudsman," the ombudsman Larisa
Alaverdian told IWPR.
When she was appointed in March 2004, following pressure from
international organisations, there was widespread scepticism that the
human rights ombudsman would have anything but a decorative role. But
after a series of bitter disagreements, in which she has rebuked the
government, President Kocharian petitioned the constitutional court
last month to restrict the mandate of his ombudsman Article 7 of the
Law on the Human Rights Defender declared that the ombudsman had
the right "to give recommendations to the court, guaranteeing the
enforcement of citizens' right to a fair trial, in accordance with
the constitution of the republic of Armenia and international norms".
However, in its May 6 verdict, the constitutional court declared this
article unconstitutional and divested the ombudsman of any right to
interfere with the judicial process.
Justice Minister David Harutunian, who testified in the constructional
court on behalf of the president, argued that the ombudsman had
effectively been given the right to undermine the independence
of judges.
"We do not want this kind of interference to continue," he told
IWPR. "Small concessions undermine the independence of the judicial
system. I believe this amendment will help the ombudsman find her
rightful place in the system."
But Alaverdian denied she had ever interfered with the administration
of justice or taken any sides, saying she had simply tried to safeguard
citizens against arbitrary judgments.
"The constitutional court decision was clearly biased," she said. "My
duty to issue recommendations to courts was limited to begin with. The
president goes by the documentation and explanations provided by his
justice minister.
They simply want to keep the ombudsman in the dark about the shady
dealings of the courts and judges.
"Instead of defending human rights, they are defending the judges
from the human rights commissioner. The majority of complaints we
receive are about court rulings and verdicts."
When the ombudsman's office published its human rights report for
2004 last month with strong criticism directed at law enforcement and
courts, it came under strong attack from different parts of government
and the legal system.
In one case, the ombudsman highlighted a human rights abuse when the
mayor of Yerevan auctioned off a plot of land that was still on valid
lease, and the tenant's rights had not been terminated. The mayor's
office described the ombudsman's actions as "unconstitutional",
and told her to stay away from property matters.
Alaverdian was similarly rebuffed by the legal department of the
president's office when she questioned the validity of government
actions in a property dispute, when citizens' property was forfeited
and land was seized for the needs of two ambitious government
construction programmes, the Northern Prospekt and Cascade in central
Yerevan.
Stepan Safarian, an analyst with the Armenian Centre for Strategic and
Ethnic Studies, believes that the Armenian authorities had expected
their ombudsman to be more obedient and were now trying to make her
so. "Whether the law was good or bad is beside the point. What matters
is that Armenia got an ombudsman, who proceeded to insist on certain
freedoms," he said.
Safarian recalled how in April 2004, when an opposition demonstration
was brutally dispersed by the police in central Yerevan, the ombudsman
put the government in an awkward position by claiming its actions
were unconstitutional and demanding an explanation from the president.
"The president appealed to the constitutional court because he did
not like this new institution which could influence the routine,
conveyor-belt administration of justice, making the outcome less
predictable," said Safarian.
Zhora Khachatrian, a legal adviser to Alaverdian, told IWPR the
ombudsman only had an oversight role in court cases.
"We are not contesting judgments, we are simply raising issues,
but they are saying this violated court independence," said
Khachatrian. "I've had at least one case when hearings were conducted
and a verdict passed in the absence of the defendant, which is against
all canons of judicial practice."
Khachatrian said the government was now embarked on a course of
restricting Alaverdian's role as much as possible. Already she is no
longer entitled to speak at government meetings. "From now on, you may
only ask questions," President Kocharian told her at a recent meeting.
"If this provision of the law is changed, then they are clearly
attempting to turn the ombudsman and her office into some kind of
compliant addendum to executive government," said Alaverdian.
"All this goes to show that the powers accorded to the human rights
ombudsman by law do not have substance," said Khachatrian. "The
ombudsman's position is strictly formal, or decorative. And whenever
the ombudsman speaks out, they claim it violates the constitution."
The Armenian Centre for Strategic and National Studies conducted a
poll in March which found that Alaverdian had gained popular support
over the last year. A total of 22.6 per cent of the sample said they
trusted the ombudsman the most as a human rights defender. By contrast
the president, parliament, government and courts all received approval
ratings of less than ten per cent.
"Restricted as the ombudsman is in her actions, she has won
considerable authority and confidence at the grassroots level,"
said Safarian.
Safarian said he was concerned that the government might be preparing
evidence to discredit the ombudsman, so that this autumn, following
constitutional reforms, Alaverdian can be replaced with a more
compliant figure.