Tweet
BALLOONS OF HARSNAKAR
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/10/18/121247/
October 18, 2012 13:24
Yesterday two trials - on balloons and on Harsnakar - took place
simultaneously and I am uneasy about both of them. Regarding the
balloons, I am sorry for the poor man who has been convicted to one
year in prison and who, as one can suggest from the trial, is the only
person who bears responsibility for the injuries of 228 people. In
regard to this case, the
leader of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) made the following
comparison - if one sells a low-quality suit in a shop, who is
responsible for that, you or the seller? The comparison seems
inappropriate to me - if I buy a suit for myself, yes, it is a problem
between me and the seller. If I buy a product for thousands of people,
I must check the quality of that product and the level of its
security. If I haven't done that, I am, at least, the seller's
accomplice. And two questions arise here. Firstly, if the buyer knew
that the product was dangerous (Serob Bozoyan says so) and he,
nonetheless, bought it, he is guiltier than the negligent producer and
the seller. Secondly, if he was given 100 rubles to buy that product
and he bought a product worth 20 rubles, he is also a cheat. I don't
care a member of what party that buyer is, but since he is not in the
dock, one can assume that this unknown person (persons, organization)
is close to the government. The aggrieved persons are very passive,
that is why it was easy to hush up the reality and to punish the
whipping boy.
The fuss about the Harsnakar case is much more - there are social
activists who follow all the developments regarding the trial. Despite
that, there are no particular reasons for excitement here either. For
example, the attorney assessed the motion of the aggrieved party's
counselor to find out whether those who had committed the crime were
workers of Harsnakar or not as mere "curiosity." So people go to a
restaurant where they are beaten and murdered, but it is not important
at all whether the murderers are workers of the restaurant or, say,
customers. Such a way of conducting a trial makes me think that the
criminals will save their neck with symbolic punishments and the case
will not be solved completely.
As opposed to the social figures following that case, I don't think
that the court or the prosecutor or the judge is put under pressure.
It seems to me that mental inertia applies here. It seems to those
people that they may be put under pressure at a certain point in time
and they prefer "to behave themselves" out of harm's way thinking that
they will suck up to the brass. Perhaps, one could explain to them
that times have changed.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
From: A. Papazian
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/10/18/121247/
October 18, 2012 13:24
Yesterday two trials - on balloons and on Harsnakar - took place
simultaneously and I am uneasy about both of them. Regarding the
balloons, I am sorry for the poor man who has been convicted to one
year in prison and who, as one can suggest from the trial, is the only
person who bears responsibility for the injuries of 228 people. In
regard to this case, the
leader of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) made the following
comparison - if one sells a low-quality suit in a shop, who is
responsible for that, you or the seller? The comparison seems
inappropriate to me - if I buy a suit for myself, yes, it is a problem
between me and the seller. If I buy a product for thousands of people,
I must check the quality of that product and the level of its
security. If I haven't done that, I am, at least, the seller's
accomplice. And two questions arise here. Firstly, if the buyer knew
that the product was dangerous (Serob Bozoyan says so) and he,
nonetheless, bought it, he is guiltier than the negligent producer and
the seller. Secondly, if he was given 100 rubles to buy that product
and he bought a product worth 20 rubles, he is also a cheat. I don't
care a member of what party that buyer is, but since he is not in the
dock, one can assume that this unknown person (persons, organization)
is close to the government. The aggrieved persons are very passive,
that is why it was easy to hush up the reality and to punish the
whipping boy.
The fuss about the Harsnakar case is much more - there are social
activists who follow all the developments regarding the trial. Despite
that, there are no particular reasons for excitement here either. For
example, the attorney assessed the motion of the aggrieved party's
counselor to find out whether those who had committed the crime were
workers of Harsnakar or not as mere "curiosity." So people go to a
restaurant where they are beaten and murdered, but it is not important
at all whether the murderers are workers of the restaurant or, say,
customers. Such a way of conducting a trial makes me think that the
criminals will save their neck with symbolic punishments and the case
will not be solved completely.
As opposed to the social figures following that case, I don't think
that the court or the prosecutor or the judge is put under pressure.
It seems to me that mental inertia applies here. It seems to those
people that they may be put under pressure at a certain point in time
and they prefer "to behave themselves" out of harm's way thinking that
they will suck up to the brass. Perhaps, one could explain to them
that times have changed.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
From: A. Papazian