Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The State Cannot Allow The Self-Destruction Process To Continue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The State Cannot Allow The Self-Destruction Process To Continue

    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.
Working...
X