Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Compensate: Who Should Pay When Human Rights Court Overturns Armenia

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

  • Compensate: Who Should Pay When Human Rights Court Overturns Armenia

    COMPENSATE: WHO SHOULD PAY WHEN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT OVERTURNS ARMENIAN COURT?
    By Gayane Abrahamyan

    ArmeniaNow
    Human rights | 05.10.12 | 15:54

    Zhirayr Sefilyan (L), Hovhannes Manukyan

    The three verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights against
    the government of Armenia, obliging it to pay a 40,000-euro fine,
    have once again raised the issue of why the tax payers' money has to
    be spent on paying fines for unfair and ordered court decisions.

    The European Court has brought in a verdict on Grisha Virabyan's case,
    who was arrested in April 2004 after the post-election clashes, and
    was brutally beaten. For torture and discriminative treatment (as an
    oppositionist) the court ruled that the Armenian government has to
    pay 31,000-euro compensation, 25,000 of which is for moral damage.

    For years Virabyan's case was in the focus of attention at
    international human rights organizations, because he - a member
    of oppositional People's Party of Armenia - was kept at the police
    station and was physically abused for several hours. This led to a
    complicated surgery when his left testicle had to be removed.

    Ironically, the ones who stood before the Armenian court were not the
    tortures but the victim: Virabyan was charged with assault against
    a police officer. In 2005 his case was suspended, but those who had
    tortured him and caused irreversible damage to his health were never
    held criminally liable for their actions.

    "This is, certainly, a victory and the compensation amount is
    unprecedented. Nonetheless, those people who tortured Virabyan like
    beasts, are still enjoying their ranks and posts. There is still
    a lot to do to fix that," Virabyan's attorney Tigran Ter-Yesayan
    told ArmeniaNow.

    The second verdict of the European Court refers to Shoushi special
    battalion commander Zhirayr Sefilyan's case. Some 15 masked National
    Security Service officers arrested him during a family feast on
    charges of illegal weapon possession and public appeals to make
    a violent attempt at changing the constitutional order and power
    turnover. None of the accusations was proved in the court.

    The government is now obliged to pay a 6000-euro compensation for
    violating his fundamental freedoms as a person.

    Human rights activists are excited by the verdicts on these
    controversial cases, nonetheless the issue is why citizens of Armenia
    have to pay the fines (from the state budget).

    "This issue has been discussed repeatedly, we always demand to impose
    financial liability upon the judges and prosecutors, but as these are
    usually political decisions ordered from the top, this issue never
    gets solved," says Ter-Yesayan.

    Former chairman of Armenia's Court of Cassation Hovhannes Manukyan
    "absolutely disagrees with the suggestion of judges' public
    flagellation or deprivation of property", nonetheless shares the
    public concerns.

    "We were discussing these issues with European experts yet a decade
    ago. They were surprised even by the fact of even discussing such
    a suggestion," Manukyan told ArmeniNow, adding that this kind of
    suggestions are 'spiced' with concerns about taxpayers' money",
    which simply lead to absurdities.

    "Let's see: why not make the criminals pay for the expenses required
    for keeping policemen, investigators and prosecutors? The logic seems
    quite simple and fair: if there weren't criminals, taxpayers would not
    have to keep that many police officers, investigators and prosecutors,"
    he says.

    Manukyan also asks why, if following that logic, only judges should
    be punished.

    "There are many cases when the country loses because a domestic law
    has been applied to the person, but that law limits some of his rights
    consolidated in the Convention. Who should pay the compensation in that
    case? The National Assembly, all of the MPs, or maybe only those who
    voted for that law? Or, let us start with the officer who was in charge
    of taking the person into custody. So, you see, it [this logic] can
    lead to absurdities. One thing is obvious - the damage to the person
    has to be compensated and the state has to be responsible for that."

Working...
X