Tweet
RULE OF LAW OR RULE OF CONVENIENCE?
The Civilitas Foundation
Friday, 26 June 2009 00:00
It is a difficult time. What should have been an act of public courage
is instead being viewed as an expedient political maneuver.
Most of those arrested and charged with involvement in the public
events on and around March 1 and the violence which followed have
been released. This would have been welcome, had it taken place in
April last year, immediately upon the President's inauguration. It
did not. President Sargsyan took no such step.
Such a step would have been welcome anytime during this difficult,
polarized, tense year. It did not happen. President Sargsyan did
not resort to declaring amnesty until 'the public urged him to do
so.' This pretense at public responsiveness came days after a disputed
mayoral election, and days before another Council of Europe hearing
on Armenia's democratization processes.
That hearing was to focus specifically on the political environment
which followed presidential elections whose results were disputed
by large numbers of the public. The amnesty decision passed the
Parliament just days before the long-outstanding trials which by all
appearances were artificially dragged out, were abruptly brought
to an end. In fact, so abruptly, that the trials' conclusion, the
defendants' convictions, their sentencing and the amnesty decision
all took place in less than a full court day.
Instead of rule of law, we seem to have rule of convenience. In fact,
so much so, that it is difficult to find answers to all the questions
that have arisen as a result of these amnesty decisions. Why, for
exampe, does amnesty not apply for the jailed editor of the opposition
newspaper, Jamanak? He has served most of his three-year sentence
after having been detained for indeed violating the law on military
service. The problem is that he is neither the first nor only such
offender, and therefore, the political implications of his detention
continue to hurt the country's image and standing.
There are more questions. But detention of journalists, especially
editors, is damaging to the democratic transformation we say we aspire
to. It does not matter that there are other editors at other opposition
newspapers still working. On the contrary, in this kind of uncertain
environment, those other editors will work under more polarized,
more extreme politicized conditions, and will do what they must to
protect their political rights, rather than serve the public's right
to honest, fair, comprehensive information, which should be their
first responsibility.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
The Civilitas Foundation
Friday, 26 June 2009 00:00
It is a difficult time. What should have been an act of public courage
is instead being viewed as an expedient political maneuver.
Most of those arrested and charged with involvement in the public
events on and around March 1 and the violence which followed have
been released. This would have been welcome, had it taken place in
April last year, immediately upon the President's inauguration. It
did not. President Sargsyan took no such step.
Such a step would have been welcome anytime during this difficult,
polarized, tense year. It did not happen. President Sargsyan did
not resort to declaring amnesty until 'the public urged him to do
so.' This pretense at public responsiveness came days after a disputed
mayoral election, and days before another Council of Europe hearing
on Armenia's democratization processes.
That hearing was to focus specifically on the political environment
which followed presidential elections whose results were disputed
by large numbers of the public. The amnesty decision passed the
Parliament just days before the long-outstanding trials which by all
appearances were artificially dragged out, were abruptly brought
to an end. In fact, so abruptly, that the trials' conclusion, the
defendants' convictions, their sentencing and the amnesty decision
all took place in less than a full court day.
Instead of rule of law, we seem to have rule of convenience. In fact,
so much so, that it is difficult to find answers to all the questions
that have arisen as a result of these amnesty decisions. Why, for
exampe, does amnesty not apply for the jailed editor of the opposition
newspaper, Jamanak? He has served most of his three-year sentence
after having been detained for indeed violating the law on military
service. The problem is that he is neither the first nor only such
offender, and therefore, the political implications of his detention
continue to hurt the country's image and standing.
There are more questions. But detention of journalists, especially
editors, is damaging to the democratic transformation we say we aspire
to. It does not matter that there are other editors at other opposition
newspapers still working. On the contrary, in this kind of uncertain
environment, those other editors will work under more polarized,
more extreme politicized conditions, and will do what they must to
protect their political rights, rather than serve the public's right
to honest, fair, comprehensive information, which should be their
first responsibility.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress