Tweet
IMPERFECT AND PARTIAL
R. SARGSYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on May 29, 2008
Armenia
This Is The Estimation Of The Prosecutor's To Ombudsman's Report
The General Prosecutor's studied the extraordinary public report made
by RA Human Rights Defender and drew clear conclusions. Which is - by
that report the Ombudsman went beyond his commissions.
Moreover, the report includes unsigned, partial information exclusively
based on the publications in the press. Armen Harutyunyan didn't try to
make use of the wide power given to the Ombudsman. He didn't even try
to check the righteousness of the information published in the press.
In this respect the Prosecutor's estimated the report as `imperfect and
partial', which can be considered a political assessment. In general we
can say that by this he tried to create an impression among the
society, that the Ombudsmen is very much concerned about the settlement
of the developments which followed `March 1'. But how can he speak
about concern, in case when he didn't make any proposals regarding the
settlement of the existing problems.
After all what is the obligation of the Ombudsman - to deliver
political speeches, or to make certain proposals to the competent
bodies regarding the correction of certain falsifications? In this case
not only did the report lack such proposals, but also the Ombudsman
gave instructions to inquest bodies, something that is beyond his
commissions.
Thus, why was it necessary for the Ombudsman to appear with an
extraordinary report? He could have grounded his public report in the
following way: `In case of the failure to settle issues of vital
importance and violation of human rights, the Ombudsman has the right
to appear with a public report.'
But A. Harutyunyan passed round the before mentioned legal base and
underscored: `The contents and the structure of the report is the
analyses of the presidential elections and the post-election
developments.'
`By the way it is not the base of an extraordinary report envisaged by
the law,' the General Prosecutor's underscores and adds: ` In our view
the Ombudsman has surpassed his commissions not only in terms of bases
and objectives, but also in terms of his obligations.' It turned out
that `the Ombudsman shoulders constitutional obligations, to give
objective assessments to the created situation and look for ways out.'
But it is not clear from where the Ombudsman took those obligations;
one thing is obvious - the Constitution doesn't envisage these
obligations for the Ombudsman.
It is very interesting that the Ombudsman doesn't utter a word
regarding the fact that Levon Ter-Petrosyan manipulates wide masses and
that this manipulation has a very bad influence on them. Instead he
expresses his admiration on the skill of the opposition leader in
`massive unification and governing tricks'. In fact the Ombudsman over
again gives political assessment to the tricks used by this or that
candidate.
In this regard the Prosecutor's gave a correct and strict assessment
saying: `The ombudsman tried to observe the situation by the
`sharpness' of the opposition, ignoring the fact that according to the
results of the investigated criminal cases the `sharpness' of the
opposition has serious connections with criminal liability, especially
because the masses were inspired not only by their sharp speeches but
also concrete breaches'.
Eventually according to the Prosecutor's the Ombudsman is trying to
give instructions to the law enforcers, which is also beyond his
competences. The expressions such as: `it is necessary to clarify' or
`¦must become a subject of inquest,' testifies to the before mentioned
fact.
The Prosecutor's expressed its objections regarding the assessment of
the Ombudsman given to March 1 developments. `The latter tries to
explain it as a manifestation of extremisms by the opposition and the
authorities. Whereas the extremism manifested by the authorities is
that the latter didn't properly elucidate the speeches made during the
illegal demonstrations, instead they introduced facts regarding
violations of the Constitutional rights of others, etc.'
Thus, according to the Prosecutor's the Ombudsman overlooked the fact
that the `peaceful' demonstrations were often followed by the breaches
of social order as well as many other manifestations of massive and
long-lasting violations of constitutional rights.'
To be continued
R. SARGSYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on May 29, 2008
Armenia
This Is The Estimation Of The Prosecutor's To Ombudsman's Report
The General Prosecutor's studied the extraordinary public report made
by RA Human Rights Defender and drew clear conclusions. Which is - by
that report the Ombudsman went beyond his commissions.
Moreover, the report includes unsigned, partial information exclusively
based on the publications in the press. Armen Harutyunyan didn't try to
make use of the wide power given to the Ombudsman. He didn't even try
to check the righteousness of the information published in the press.
In this respect the Prosecutor's estimated the report as `imperfect and
partial', which can be considered a political assessment. In general we
can say that by this he tried to create an impression among the
society, that the Ombudsmen is very much concerned about the settlement
of the developments which followed `March 1'. But how can he speak
about concern, in case when he didn't make any proposals regarding the
settlement of the existing problems.
After all what is the obligation of the Ombudsman - to deliver
political speeches, or to make certain proposals to the competent
bodies regarding the correction of certain falsifications? In this case
not only did the report lack such proposals, but also the Ombudsman
gave instructions to inquest bodies, something that is beyond his
commissions.
Thus, why was it necessary for the Ombudsman to appear with an
extraordinary report? He could have grounded his public report in the
following way: `In case of the failure to settle issues of vital
importance and violation of human rights, the Ombudsman has the right
to appear with a public report.'
But A. Harutyunyan passed round the before mentioned legal base and
underscored: `The contents and the structure of the report is the
analyses of the presidential elections and the post-election
developments.'
`By the way it is not the base of an extraordinary report envisaged by
the law,' the General Prosecutor's underscores and adds: ` In our view
the Ombudsman has surpassed his commissions not only in terms of bases
and objectives, but also in terms of his obligations.' It turned out
that `the Ombudsman shoulders constitutional obligations, to give
objective assessments to the created situation and look for ways out.'
But it is not clear from where the Ombudsman took those obligations;
one thing is obvious - the Constitution doesn't envisage these
obligations for the Ombudsman.
It is very interesting that the Ombudsman doesn't utter a word
regarding the fact that Levon Ter-Petrosyan manipulates wide masses and
that this manipulation has a very bad influence on them. Instead he
expresses his admiration on the skill of the opposition leader in
`massive unification and governing tricks'. In fact the Ombudsman over
again gives political assessment to the tricks used by this or that
candidate.
In this regard the Prosecutor's gave a correct and strict assessment
saying: `The ombudsman tried to observe the situation by the
`sharpness' of the opposition, ignoring the fact that according to the
results of the investigated criminal cases the `sharpness' of the
opposition has serious connections with criminal liability, especially
because the masses were inspired not only by their sharp speeches but
also concrete breaches'.
Eventually according to the Prosecutor's the Ombudsman is trying to
give instructions to the law enforcers, which is also beyond his
competences. The expressions such as: `it is necessary to clarify' or
`¦must become a subject of inquest,' testifies to the before mentioned
fact.
The Prosecutor's expressed its objections regarding the assessment of
the Ombudsman given to March 1 developments. `The latter tries to
explain it as a manifestation of extremisms by the opposition and the
authorities. Whereas the extremism manifested by the authorities is
that the latter didn't properly elucidate the speeches made during the
illegal demonstrations, instead they introduced facts regarding
violations of the Constitutional rights of others, etc.'
Thus, according to the Prosecutor's the Ombudsman overlooked the fact
that the `peaceful' demonstrations were often followed by the breaches
of social order as well as many other manifestations of massive and
long-lasting violations of constitutional rights.'
To be continued