Tweet
Artak Zeynalyan. `The objective of `A1+' is to confirm the fact on
violation of rights
Fri, 12/28/2012 - 13:29
The representative of `Meltex' LLC, founder of `A1+' channel, Ara
Ghazaryan and Artak Zeynalyan have already presented the main
complaint on the case `A1+' against the RA to the ECHR. Earlier the TV
channel representatives had presented the preliminary complaint
challenging the legality of the actions of the Armenian Television and
National Radio Council.
As Artak Zeynalyan said during the conversation with the reporter of
`Pastinfo.am' the issue of violating Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech was raised.
Particularly, the TV channel challenges the lawfulness and fairness of
the competition for providing broadcast frequencies that took place on
December 16, 2010. In that competition the TV channel's rival was
`Armnews' TV channel and the application of `A1+' was once again
rejected.
The representatives of `A1+' also raise the issue of legality of
defining the winner based on the Commission decision, which according
to the party results in commercialization of TV channels, news and
does not contribute to the availability of pluralistic opinions. A.
Zeynalyan highlighted that this concept is also available in
international documents. Particularly, the PACE found in its formula
No 1837 adopted in 2010, that the presence of pluralistic media
environment is an essential condition for democratic developments.
According to the estimations of the PACE, the mentioned competition
did not result in the formation of a more pluralistic environment and
in this respect the competition results do not meet the Convention
requirements. The PACE also urged the authorities to realize changes,
incorporate legal liability, according to which the decision with
regard to licensing will be made through ensuring pluralism in media
environment.
A. Zeynalyan highlighted that the goal of winning the case at the ECHR
is not at all receiving compensation, but rather the confirmation of
the fact of the violation of the right to freedom of speech, `so that
we would have a chance to reopen those judicial cases, by means of
which we have finished the judicial defence measures in Armenia, the
aim is to reopen the case and finally declare the mentioned decision
of the NCTR void'.
`A1+' also applied to the Constitutional Court of the RA, contesting
the law, which was implemented by the Court of Cassation regarding the
reopening of the case on the basis of the decision of the
Constitutional Court. The CC stated that it has already expressed its
position regarding that question and that its `judicial practice
develops in an opposite direction'.
`A1+' representative highlighted that the Court of Cassation does not
perform CC's decisions, particularly the decision regarding the
enforcement of the decision about enforcing the ECHR judgment. `The
ECHR judgment was not enforced, which confirmed the violation of
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights by `Meltex' LLC, the judicial case wasn't
reopened, the CC decisions, which concerned the ECHR judgment
enforcement, were not implemented. Thus we still have the CC decision,
which is not yet enforced', said A. Zeynalyan.
Author:
Factinfo
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
violation of rights
Fri, 12/28/2012 - 13:29
The representative of `Meltex' LLC, founder of `A1+' channel, Ara
Ghazaryan and Artak Zeynalyan have already presented the main
complaint on the case `A1+' against the RA to the ECHR. Earlier the TV
channel representatives had presented the preliminary complaint
challenging the legality of the actions of the Armenian Television and
National Radio Council.
As Artak Zeynalyan said during the conversation with the reporter of
`Pastinfo.am' the issue of violating Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech was raised.
Particularly, the TV channel challenges the lawfulness and fairness of
the competition for providing broadcast frequencies that took place on
December 16, 2010. In that competition the TV channel's rival was
`Armnews' TV channel and the application of `A1+' was once again
rejected.
The representatives of `A1+' also raise the issue of legality of
defining the winner based on the Commission decision, which according
to the party results in commercialization of TV channels, news and
does not contribute to the availability of pluralistic opinions. A.
Zeynalyan highlighted that this concept is also available in
international documents. Particularly, the PACE found in its formula
No 1837 adopted in 2010, that the presence of pluralistic media
environment is an essential condition for democratic developments.
According to the estimations of the PACE, the mentioned competition
did not result in the formation of a more pluralistic environment and
in this respect the competition results do not meet the Convention
requirements. The PACE also urged the authorities to realize changes,
incorporate legal liability, according to which the decision with
regard to licensing will be made through ensuring pluralism in media
environment.
A. Zeynalyan highlighted that the goal of winning the case at the ECHR
is not at all receiving compensation, but rather the confirmation of
the fact of the violation of the right to freedom of speech, `so that
we would have a chance to reopen those judicial cases, by means of
which we have finished the judicial defence measures in Armenia, the
aim is to reopen the case and finally declare the mentioned decision
of the NCTR void'.
`A1+' also applied to the Constitutional Court of the RA, contesting
the law, which was implemented by the Court of Cassation regarding the
reopening of the case on the basis of the decision of the
Constitutional Court. The CC stated that it has already expressed its
position regarding that question and that its `judicial practice
develops in an opposite direction'.
`A1+' representative highlighted that the Court of Cassation does not
perform CC's decisions, particularly the decision regarding the
enforcement of the decision about enforcing the ECHR judgment. `The
ECHR judgment was not enforced, which confirmed the violation of
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights by `Meltex' LLC, the judicial case wasn't
reopened, the CC decisions, which concerned the ECHR judgment
enforcement, were not implemented. Thus we still have the CC decision,
which is not yet enforced', said A. Zeynalyan.
Author:
Factinfo
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress