Tweet
THE STATE CANNOT ALLOW THE SELF-DESTRUCTION PROCESS TO CONTINUE
Gevorg Haroutyunyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
March 19, 2008
Interview with NA Deputy RAFIK PETROSYAN
"Mr. Petrosyan, the NA extraordinary session introduced changes in
and amendments to the law on 'Holding Gatherings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Rallies'. What was such necessity conditioned by?"
"The law establishing the order of organizing and holding mass events
was adopted by the National Assembly in 2004. On the recommendation
and at the demand of the Venice Committee, it was reformed a year
later. The necessity of reviewing the law became obvious in the context
of the post-electoral demonstrations and marches as well as the mass
disorders organized on March 1.
It became obvious that there were quite a large number of shortcomings
in the law, and especially some clauses contravened the International
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, as well as our country's
constitutional order ensuring the security of the population during
mass events.
The existing law did not include all the bans enshrined in the norms
of international law and unconditionally applied in the democratic
countries during mass events.
In the aftermath of the well-known mass events organized in more
liberal legislative conditions, 8 citizens of our country died, more
than 200 people were wounded. Three of them are now in a rather grave
condition. It is first of all necessary to initiate political events
to prevent the repetition of all this and to rule of the ambitions
of pushing different groups of people to a confrontation."
"And what particular changes and amendments were introduced to
the law?"
"It is impossible for any law to remain unchanged. Along with the
development of public relations and by the call of the times, the
laws constantly change. As far as the March 1 events are concerned,
we are obliged to prevent the repetition of the confrontations,
mass disorders, plunder, ravage and other activities demoralizing
the country and the state.
We have reviewed the norms on prohibiting gatherings and
demonstrations.
Authorizing such mass events was prohibited in case of overthrowing
the constitutional order, inciting national, racial and religious
hatred, preaching war and violence.
By introducing a change in the law, we added to it a Section from
Article 11 of the International Convention of Human Rights. The
Section was not previously included in the law. According to it,
mass events can also be prohibited in such cases when they may cause
mass disorders, ruin the security of the state, the public order,
the health of the population and morality as well as violate others'
constitutional rights and freedoms.
The legislative was obviously guided by state-public interests,
and it accomplished the logic of the law. In this context, the law
also established the competences of the body authorized to disallow
mass events.
To reject a claim for organizing gatherings or demonstrations, the
competent body should have reliable data. According to our legislative
change, such reliable data should be provided by the Police and the
National Security Service in the form of an official conclusion. Only
this may serve as grounds for prohibiting a mass event.
And under Section 6 supplemented to the law, the body organizing a mass
event may be rejected if the demonstrations and marches organized by
it in the past had grave consequences or led to violence and human
losses. Such restrictions are not forever either, and according to
the law, will not be applied if the organizers, the organizers have
been found out and there are reliable data on the share of guilt
of each organizer. Anyway, the law established that mass events
may be rejected only in grave conditions when all the resources for
preventing the obvious danger have been exhausted. The estimations
that may serve as grounds for rejection should be made by the Police
and the National Security Agencies.
In Clause 3, Article 9 we have established that the right to hold
mass events may not be exercised in case they pose a threat to the
security of the state and the nation, result in the violation of the
public order, influence the society's moral-psychological condition
or violate others' constitutional rights. We have removed the notion
"spontaneous and non-mass events" from the law, as this implies the
existence of less than 100 participants.
Article 29 of our Constitution directly states that rallies should be
held peacefully, without the use of weapons. We practically saw how
a 'peaceful' rally changed into mass disorder, violence against the
Police, plunder and ravage. Under the current law the organizer may,
within three days after giving a notice, obtain permission from the
competent body for holding a demonstration or a march. I have already
said that all the rejections should be substantiated, and three days
in this case is required.
If the legislative had not introduced the required changes in the
law, there might be no guarantee that the March 1 events would not be
repeated after March 21, when the state of emergency would no longer
be in effect. The state cannot allow for the continuation of murders
and self-destructions.
The legislative was just obliged to help the President of the Republic
restore and re-establish lawfulness and regular public order in
our country.
Gevorg Haroutyunyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
March 19, 2008
Interview with NA Deputy RAFIK PETROSYAN
"Mr. Petrosyan, the NA extraordinary session introduced changes in
and amendments to the law on 'Holding Gatherings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Rallies'. What was such necessity conditioned by?"
"The law establishing the order of organizing and holding mass events
was adopted by the National Assembly in 2004. On the recommendation
and at the demand of the Venice Committee, it was reformed a year
later. The necessity of reviewing the law became obvious in the context
of the post-electoral demonstrations and marches as well as the mass
disorders organized on March 1.
It became obvious that there were quite a large number of shortcomings
in the law, and especially some clauses contravened the International
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, as well as our country's
constitutional order ensuring the security of the population during
mass events.
The existing law did not include all the bans enshrined in the norms
of international law and unconditionally applied in the democratic
countries during mass events.
In the aftermath of the well-known mass events organized in more
liberal legislative conditions, 8 citizens of our country died, more
than 200 people were wounded. Three of them are now in a rather grave
condition. It is first of all necessary to initiate political events
to prevent the repetition of all this and to rule of the ambitions
of pushing different groups of people to a confrontation."
"And what particular changes and amendments were introduced to
the law?"
"It is impossible for any law to remain unchanged. Along with the
development of public relations and by the call of the times, the
laws constantly change. As far as the March 1 events are concerned,
we are obliged to prevent the repetition of the confrontations,
mass disorders, plunder, ravage and other activities demoralizing
the country and the state.
We have reviewed the norms on prohibiting gatherings and
demonstrations.
Authorizing such mass events was prohibited in case of overthrowing
the constitutional order, inciting national, racial and religious
hatred, preaching war and violence.
By introducing a change in the law, we added to it a Section from
Article 11 of the International Convention of Human Rights. The
Section was not previously included in the law. According to it,
mass events can also be prohibited in such cases when they may cause
mass disorders, ruin the security of the state, the public order,
the health of the population and morality as well as violate others'
constitutional rights and freedoms.
The legislative was obviously guided by state-public interests,
and it accomplished the logic of the law. In this context, the law
also established the competences of the body authorized to disallow
mass events.
To reject a claim for organizing gatherings or demonstrations, the
competent body should have reliable data. According to our legislative
change, such reliable data should be provided by the Police and the
National Security Service in the form of an official conclusion. Only
this may serve as grounds for prohibiting a mass event.
And under Section 6 supplemented to the law, the body organizing a mass
event may be rejected if the demonstrations and marches organized by
it in the past had grave consequences or led to violence and human
losses. Such restrictions are not forever either, and according to
the law, will not be applied if the organizers, the organizers have
been found out and there are reliable data on the share of guilt
of each organizer. Anyway, the law established that mass events
may be rejected only in grave conditions when all the resources for
preventing the obvious danger have been exhausted. The estimations
that may serve as grounds for rejection should be made by the Police
and the National Security Agencies.
In Clause 3, Article 9 we have established that the right to hold
mass events may not be exercised in case they pose a threat to the
security of the state and the nation, result in the violation of the
public order, influence the society's moral-psychological condition
or violate others' constitutional rights. We have removed the notion
"spontaneous and non-mass events" from the law, as this implies the
existence of less than 100 participants.
Article 29 of our Constitution directly states that rallies should be
held peacefully, without the use of weapons. We practically saw how
a 'peaceful' rally changed into mass disorder, violence against the
Police, plunder and ravage. Under the current law the organizer may,
within three days after giving a notice, obtain permission from the
competent body for holding a demonstration or a march. I have already
said that all the rejections should be substantiated, and three days
in this case is required.
If the legislative had not introduced the required changes in the
law, there might be no guarantee that the March 1 events would not be
repeated after March 21, when the state of emergency would no longer
be in effect. The state cannot allow for the continuation of murders
and self-destructions.
The legislative was just obliged to help the President of the Republic
restore and re-establish lawfulness and regular public order in
our country.