Tweet
"WHY SHOULD HUNGARY DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF GURGEN MARGARYAN'S LEGAL SUCCESSOR, IF MY INTERESTS ARE NOT DEFENDED IN THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA?"
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/09/03/105198/
September 3, 2012 15:01
A few days ago, www.aravot.am wrote about the noncontact confrontation
between Karen Hekimyan, the head of the Citizen Rights Protector NGO,
and Karen Andreasyan, the Human Rights Defender.
Let us remind that K. Hekimyan applied to Karen Andreasyan, the Human
Rights Defender, on May 23, asking him to record that his rights had
been violated and to take action to hold the violators accountable. He
raised the issue that 15 days after the parliamentary election
that had taken place on May 6, 2012, he noticed that the stamp with
inscription CEC (Central Election Commission) put on his passport by
the election commission of no. 12/03 polling station in Yerevan had
not disappeared. In regard to this, K. Hekimyan expressed an opinion
during a conversation with www.aravot.am that the Human Rights Defender
just performed the functions of mailman and K. Andreasyan preferred
not to respond to the accusations against him.
After our article had been published, Karen Hekimyan received the
decision of the Human Rights Defender to cease considering his
complaint. During a conversation with www.aravot.am, K. Hekimyan
expressed his annoyance presenting he following explanation of the
Human Rights Defender, "Unfortunately, the abilities given to the
Human Rights Defender in accordance with the Human Rights Defender
Act of the Republic of Armenia to solve the issue you have raised in
state bodies have been exhausted."
In this regard, K. Hekimyan said, "The Human Rights Defender of the
Republic of Armenia expresses his regret on behalf of the Republic of
Armenia to me, a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, for the fact that
all abilities to defend my rights in my country have been exhausted.
And we talk about Hungary and Safarov. Why should Hungary defend
the interests of Gurgen Margaryan's legal successor, if my interests
are not defended in the Republic of Armenia? This testifies to the
negligence of the Human Rights Defender. Can
you imagine Solzhenitsyn, Havel and Sakharov stating that they cannot
defend human rights anymore? The Human Rights Defender must defend
human rights, period."
Our interlocutor thinks that it is a disgrace that the Human Rights
Defender refers to Article 15 of the Human Rights Defender Act of the
Republic of Armenia in his decision addressed to him stating that in
accordance with it, he ceases considering the complaint. Whereas K.
Hekimyan claims that the law reads something completely different and
remarks, "If a person doesn't know what is written in that Article,
how can he protect human rights?"
According to K. Hekomyan's observation, K. Andreasyan made a set of
other mistakes too. For example, Mr. Hekimyan applied only to the
Central Election Commission (CEC) to solve the issue, or made public
data he was aware of on one of the websites, the right to which he
didn't have.
K. Hekimyan has filed a petition in the administrative court. Our
interlocutor mentioned what he demanded, in particular, "I want the
Human Rights Defender to defend human rights. There is no mention
in any article of the Constitution about exhausted abilities and
expressing regret to a person, what the Human Rights Defender wrote
is not legal."
K. Hekimyan continues to claim that there are no mechanisms to hold
the Human Rights Defender accountable, in case of his negligence.
Therefore, K. Hekimyan also raises this issue - the compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
From: Baghdasarian
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/09/03/105198/
September 3, 2012 15:01
A few days ago, www.aravot.am wrote about the noncontact confrontation
between Karen Hekimyan, the head of the Citizen Rights Protector NGO,
and Karen Andreasyan, the Human Rights Defender.
Let us remind that K. Hekimyan applied to Karen Andreasyan, the Human
Rights Defender, on May 23, asking him to record that his rights had
been violated and to take action to hold the violators accountable. He
raised the issue that 15 days after the parliamentary election
that had taken place on May 6, 2012, he noticed that the stamp with
inscription CEC (Central Election Commission) put on his passport by
the election commission of no. 12/03 polling station in Yerevan had
not disappeared. In regard to this, K. Hekimyan expressed an opinion
during a conversation with www.aravot.am that the Human Rights Defender
just performed the functions of mailman and K. Andreasyan preferred
not to respond to the accusations against him.
After our article had been published, Karen Hekimyan received the
decision of the Human Rights Defender to cease considering his
complaint. During a conversation with www.aravot.am, K. Hekimyan
expressed his annoyance presenting he following explanation of the
Human Rights Defender, "Unfortunately, the abilities given to the
Human Rights Defender in accordance with the Human Rights Defender
Act of the Republic of Armenia to solve the issue you have raised in
state bodies have been exhausted."
In this regard, K. Hekimyan said, "The Human Rights Defender of the
Republic of Armenia expresses his regret on behalf of the Republic of
Armenia to me, a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, for the fact that
all abilities to defend my rights in my country have been exhausted.
And we talk about Hungary and Safarov. Why should Hungary defend
the interests of Gurgen Margaryan's legal successor, if my interests
are not defended in the Republic of Armenia? This testifies to the
negligence of the Human Rights Defender. Can
you imagine Solzhenitsyn, Havel and Sakharov stating that they cannot
defend human rights anymore? The Human Rights Defender must defend
human rights, period."
Our interlocutor thinks that it is a disgrace that the Human Rights
Defender refers to Article 15 of the Human Rights Defender Act of the
Republic of Armenia in his decision addressed to him stating that in
accordance with it, he ceases considering the complaint. Whereas K.
Hekimyan claims that the law reads something completely different and
remarks, "If a person doesn't know what is written in that Article,
how can he protect human rights?"
According to K. Hekomyan's observation, K. Andreasyan made a set of
other mistakes too. For example, Mr. Hekimyan applied only to the
Central Election Commission (CEC) to solve the issue, or made public
data he was aware of on one of the websites, the right to which he
didn't have.
K. Hekimyan has filed a petition in the administrative court. Our
interlocutor mentioned what he demanded, in particular, "I want the
Human Rights Defender to defend human rights. There is no mention
in any article of the Constitution about exhausted abilities and
expressing regret to a person, what the Human Rights Defender wrote
is not legal."
K. Hekimyan continues to claim that there are no mechanisms to hold
the Human Rights Defender accountable, in case of his negligence.
Therefore, K. Hekimyan also raises this issue - the compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
From: Baghdasarian