Tweet
A1+
COMMISSION VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO IMMUNITY
[08:01 pm] 28 November, 2008
Today the NA ad hoc Commission looking into the events of March 1-2
watched a film on the tragic occurrences. The film divulged the
deciphered telephone talks of several opposition representatives. The
main idea of the film was that the opposition directed the
demonstrators to the French Embassy instead of sending them home
although feeling the explicit threat hanging on them.
In other shot Suren Sirunyan informs the head of Levon Ter-Petrosyan's
pre-election office, Alexandre Arzumanyan, that the demonstrators `had
already `taken' several streets, among them Grigor Lusavorich,
Paronyan, and set fire to some police cars. Satisfied with the answer
Arzumanyan said, `Excellent, excellent.'
The Chairman of the Commission, Samvel Nikoyan, said the film proves
that the demonstrators robbed the neighbouring shops. The robbery was
not committed by the authorities as the opposition used to
claim. During his telephone talk with Alexandre Arzumanyan, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan asks, `Are you in high spirits?' and adds, `This is what
I expected.'
The film didn't give answer to a most vital question: when exactly
Levon Ter-Petrosyan had a telephone talk with Arzumanyan - before or
after March 2? In the main the film focused on human relations among
Armenian oppositionists and laid a special emphasis to Arzumanyan's
disregard and offensive words towards his fellow colleagues. During
the sitting the Leader of the United Labour Party, Gurgen Arsenyan,
and member of the Prosperous Armenia Party, Naira Zohrabyan, announced
that the film might be submitted with the commission to divert their
attention and suggested not to hurry with conclusions. ARF
Dashnaktsutyun member Artsvik Minasyan reminded the presentees about
the commission's mission and National Unity representative Sargis
Muradkhanyan thanked the authors of the film. The Leader of the
National Concord Aram Harutyunyan posed a rhetoric question to the
Commission: `And where did the film owners get the deciphered talk?' A
voice said off screen, `If you were sure of your victory why didn't
you appeal to court? If you didn't instill confidence in our courts
why didn't you appeal to the European Court of Human Rights?'
Note that the Constitutional Court hadn't heard Levon Ter-Petrosyan's
suit on March 1.
Let's remind the words of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human
Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, `The opposition's telephone talks shouldn't
be deciphered. Decoding of such talks by the National Security Service
is inadmissible for me in a country of law. It infringes the right to
immunity to private life.'
COMMISSION VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO IMMUNITY
[08:01 pm] 28 November, 2008
Today the NA ad hoc Commission looking into the events of March 1-2
watched a film on the tragic occurrences. The film divulged the
deciphered telephone talks of several opposition representatives. The
main idea of the film was that the opposition directed the
demonstrators to the French Embassy instead of sending them home
although feeling the explicit threat hanging on them.
In other shot Suren Sirunyan informs the head of Levon Ter-Petrosyan's
pre-election office, Alexandre Arzumanyan, that the demonstrators `had
already `taken' several streets, among them Grigor Lusavorich,
Paronyan, and set fire to some police cars. Satisfied with the answer
Arzumanyan said, `Excellent, excellent.'
The Chairman of the Commission, Samvel Nikoyan, said the film proves
that the demonstrators robbed the neighbouring shops. The robbery was
not committed by the authorities as the opposition used to
claim. During his telephone talk with Alexandre Arzumanyan, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan asks, `Are you in high spirits?' and adds, `This is what
I expected.'
The film didn't give answer to a most vital question: when exactly
Levon Ter-Petrosyan had a telephone talk with Arzumanyan - before or
after March 2? In the main the film focused on human relations among
Armenian oppositionists and laid a special emphasis to Arzumanyan's
disregard and offensive words towards his fellow colleagues. During
the sitting the Leader of the United Labour Party, Gurgen Arsenyan,
and member of the Prosperous Armenia Party, Naira Zohrabyan, announced
that the film might be submitted with the commission to divert their
attention and suggested not to hurry with conclusions. ARF
Dashnaktsutyun member Artsvik Minasyan reminded the presentees about
the commission's mission and National Unity representative Sargis
Muradkhanyan thanked the authors of the film. The Leader of the
National Concord Aram Harutyunyan posed a rhetoric question to the
Commission: `And where did the film owners get the deciphered talk?' A
voice said off screen, `If you were sure of your victory why didn't
you appeal to court? If you didn't instill confidence in our courts
why didn't you appeal to the European Court of Human Rights?'
Note that the Constitutional Court hadn't heard Levon Ter-Petrosyan's
suit on March 1.
Let's remind the words of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human
Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, `The opposition's telephone talks shouldn't
be deciphered. Decoding of such talks by the National Security Service
is inadmissible for me in a country of law. It infringes the right to
immunity to private life.'