Tweet
POLITICAL PRISONERS NEVER RESORT TO VIOLENCE
GEVORG HAROUTYUNYAN
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
12 Dec 2008
Armenia
Interview with NP RAZMIK ZOHRABYAN, Vice Chair of the Republican Party
and a political prisoner of the Soviet times
`Mr. Zohrabyan, why are the radical leaders roused by the fact that the
President of the country granted an amnesty to three individuals
convicted for the March 1 disorders, based on the requests they had
submitted.'
`I definitely welcome the fact that President Serge Sargsyan
demonstrated good will. The President of the country has granted an
amnesty to those participants of the `March 1' events who admit the
fact of their having committed a crime and at the same time, do not
give up the idea of protecting their political beliefs and continuing
the struggle.
Undoubtedly, the individuals who were granted an amnesty committed
offences punishable under the Criminal Code, and their guilt was
confirmed by the court. I attach much importance to the fact that the
President of the country expressed willingness to continue exercising
his constitutional right of granting amnesties. I am convinced that the
request-appeals of all the convicts will be studied one by one, and the
series of amnesties may continue.
It is obvious that many of the participants of the `March 1' disorders
were deluded. For some reason, they found themselves in the
atmosphere
of protest rallies and resorted to illegal acts in the existing tense
situation. Their deeds had social causes; these are criminal offences
which, however, do not have a political pretext.
The radicals realize this very well, and they know perfectly well that
to date, not all the active participants, organizers or leaders of the
post-electoral developments have been detained. Some of them have taken
to flight; they resort to any method to hide from or avoid justice. The
strange thing is that these people call on the individuals who were
imprisoned because of them and instead of them not to write requests
and continue `their struggle' in the places of detention.'
`What if all the detainees were granted a pardon together? Wouldn't
that be more proper?'
`Let's keep in mind that the radical opposition had plans to stage a
coup d'état or a revolution. They themselves confirm that fact in their
public speeches. And that's a crime against the constitutional order of
the country. The law-enforcement system is capable of preventing this
attempt of staging a coup d'état; that's why, at least the organizers
and chief participants of such disorders should be held criminally
liable.
But I don't think this should apply to many of those detained at
present, because they are less guilty than the real organizers and they
do deserve an20amnesty.'
`Can the individuals detained within the frameworks of the `March 1'
case be considered `political prisoners'?'
`No, because apart from expressing their political views they also
resorted to violence and committed offences. And they were convicted
for that. A political prisoner can be the one who led an exclusively
political struggle and did not resort to violence or any other illegal
act.
The entire democratic world is guided by this principle. Any political
figure committing robbery, murder or an act of violence in Europe, the
United States, China and any other country is definitely convicted.
In the Soviet Union, I wasn't convicted for my political views; I was
convicted for concrete actions, particularly, for printing and
disseminating anti-Soviet leaflets and burning Lenin's picture on the
square. I also made appeals for proclaiming Armenia's independence from
the USSR, but I didn't resort to violence. However, it is impossible
for any Government not to condemn those who built barricades and showed
resistance to the government with stones, iron sticks and arms in an
attempt to seize power. Neither can they be granted amnesty if they
haven't admitted their guilt and haven't repented.
Whereas, an amnesty applies to all the individuals who committed the
same crime, without consideration of the circumstances, personal
characters an
d motives. How can the state pardon those who wanted to
dismantle the state-government system, the Army and the law enforcement
bodies and seize power?
If we forgive revanchism today, it may acquire a more organized nature
tomorrow. After all, revanchists funded by foreign forces pursue a goal
to provoke a civil war and bring harm to the independence and statehood
of the Republic of Armenia and Artsakh.'
GEVORG HAROUTYUNYAN
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
12 Dec 2008
Armenia
Interview with NP RAZMIK ZOHRABYAN, Vice Chair of the Republican Party
and a political prisoner of the Soviet times
`Mr. Zohrabyan, why are the radical leaders roused by the fact that the
President of the country granted an amnesty to three individuals
convicted for the March 1 disorders, based on the requests they had
submitted.'
`I definitely welcome the fact that President Serge Sargsyan
demonstrated good will. The President of the country has granted an
amnesty to those participants of the `March 1' events who admit the
fact of their having committed a crime and at the same time, do not
give up the idea of protecting their political beliefs and continuing
the struggle.
Undoubtedly, the individuals who were granted an amnesty committed
offences punishable under the Criminal Code, and their guilt was
confirmed by the court. I attach much importance to the fact that the
President of the country expressed willingness to continue exercising
his constitutional right of granting amnesties. I am convinced that the
request-appeals of all the convicts will be studied one by one, and the
series of amnesties may continue.
It is obvious that many of the participants of the `March 1' disorders
were deluded. For some reason, they found themselves in the
atmosphere
of protest rallies and resorted to illegal acts in the existing tense
situation. Their deeds had social causes; these are criminal offences
which, however, do not have a political pretext.
The radicals realize this very well, and they know perfectly well that
to date, not all the active participants, organizers or leaders of the
post-electoral developments have been detained. Some of them have taken
to flight; they resort to any method to hide from or avoid justice. The
strange thing is that these people call on the individuals who were
imprisoned because of them and instead of them not to write requests
and continue `their struggle' in the places of detention.'
`What if all the detainees were granted a pardon together? Wouldn't
that be more proper?'
`Let's keep in mind that the radical opposition had plans to stage a
coup d'état or a revolution. They themselves confirm that fact in their
public speeches. And that's a crime against the constitutional order of
the country. The law-enforcement system is capable of preventing this
attempt of staging a coup d'état; that's why, at least the organizers
and chief participants of such disorders should be held criminally
liable.
But I don't think this should apply to many of those detained at
present, because they are less guilty than the real organizers and they
do deserve an20amnesty.'
`Can the individuals detained within the frameworks of the `March 1'
case be considered `political prisoners'?'
`No, because apart from expressing their political views they also
resorted to violence and committed offences. And they were convicted
for that. A political prisoner can be the one who led an exclusively
political struggle and did not resort to violence or any other illegal
act.
The entire democratic world is guided by this principle. Any political
figure committing robbery, murder or an act of violence in Europe, the
United States, China and any other country is definitely convicted.
In the Soviet Union, I wasn't convicted for my political views; I was
convicted for concrete actions, particularly, for printing and
disseminating anti-Soviet leaflets and burning Lenin's picture on the
square. I also made appeals for proclaiming Armenia's independence from
the USSR, but I didn't resort to violence. However, it is impossible
for any Government not to condemn those who built barricades and showed
resistance to the government with stones, iron sticks and arms in an
attempt to seize power. Neither can they be granted amnesty if they
haven't admitted their guilt and haven't repented.
Whereas, an amnesty applies to all the individuals who committed the
same crime, without consideration of the circumstances, personal
characters an
d motives. How can the state pardon those who wanted to
dismantle the state-government system, the Army and the law enforcement
bodies and seize power?
If we forgive revanchism today, it may acquire a more organized nature
tomorrow. After all, revanchists funded by foreign forces pursue a goal
to provoke a civil war and bring harm to the independence and statehood
of the Republic of Armenia and Artsakh.'