Tweet
P.A.C.E. GIVES TIME TO THE ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES
Armen Tsatouryan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
June 27, 2008
Armenia
While the opposition feels no better than at the start
As we know, in its summer session convened on June 25, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe decided to give
additional time to our country for the implementation of Resolution #
1609 on the "Activities of the Democratic Institutions in Armenia". The
time-limit for the compliance with the Resolution requirements has
been extended till January 2009.
Although with regard to separate issues, particularly, the rights
of the detainees, the EU Commissioner for Human Rights is to submit
a report to the PACE Monitoring Committee much earlier - before
the fall session, the overall results of Armenia's compliance with
its commitments will be summed up no sooner than at the beginning
of next year. The Azeri MPs, who stood out with their aggressive
behavior during the PACE hearings, considered the decision on giving
time to Armenia as the "successive evidence" of a partial attitude
towards our country. The fact was estimated in a likewise manner by
Mr. L. Zourabyan, L. Ter-Petrosyan's representative.
Even though Mr. Zourabyan singles out both positive and the negative
elements in the Resolution, he too, is dissatisfied with the fact that
"the Armenian authorities were given too much time".
After hearing L. Ter-Petrosyan's speech delivered during the June
20 demonstration, one may get an impression that the PACE is in
the ex-President's "pocket", that's why he offers our authorities
a specific kind of deal: to "mediate" and avert the danger of
depriving our country of the right to vote in return for releasing
the detainees. As we see, such "proposal for mediation" was ignored
not only by the Armenian authorities but also by the Parliamentary
Assembly.
Moreover, through the Resolution adopted in its summer session
on June 25, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
expressed regret that the Armenian opposition hadn't recognized the
decision of the Constitutional Court with regard to the February 19
presidential elections.
This means that the intention to dispute the election results
in the European Court - a propaganda bluff disseminated by the
pro-Ter-Petrosyan activists, has vanished into the air.
If, after all this, Mr. Ter-Petrosyan and his team members do not
keep their propaganda-oriented promise, they will find themselves
in a ridiculous situation, ignoring those clauses which are not
advantageous to them and at the same time demanding the implementation
of the remaining part of the Resolution. And if the pro-opposition
activists nevertheless decide to apply to the court, they will find
themselves in a much more ridiculous situation because the court will
never "fly over" the assessments made by the European observers.
However, it is obvious that having extended the time-limits for
Armenia's compliance with its commitments, the PACE has met the
opposition half-way with regard to many issues. In particular, the
Armenian authorities were offered not to prosecute individuals based
purely on police testimonies, as well as terminate the prosecution
of and grant pardon to those who neither committed violent crimes
nor made appeals for violence or otherwise had complicity in the
acts mentioned above. Such formulation which practically seems quite
acceptable gives way to ambiguous interpretations.
And Ter-Petrosyan will certainly try to take advantage of that in
the near future, since our ideas about the calls for violence or
the assistance provided to their authors very often stand in stark
contradiction to one another.
The PACE's specific "prescriptions" for developing trust in the
activities of the parliamentary committee investigating the March
1-2 events give way to uncertainty as well. In particular, it is
proposed that decisions be made based on the principle of consensus;
furthermore, they demand that the principle be also applied to the
opposition representatives who were elected as committee members by
advisory vote.
One can only imagine how the members of the NA interim committee will
work with Gevorik from the Armenian Pan-National Movement, and what
the outcome will be.
The PACE Resolution also calls on the Armenian authorities not to
introduce "unnecessary restrictions" to the "Law on Demonstrations";
this too, gives way to uncertainty and ambiguous interpretations as it
enables the Armenian authorities and opposition to interpret the term
"unnecessary restrictions" in their own way.
Anyway, we believe that after the PACE summer session the opposition
will have no other choice apart from initiating a dialogue with
the authorities.
Armen Tsatouryan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
June 27, 2008
Armenia
While the opposition feels no better than at the start
As we know, in its summer session convened on June 25, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe decided to give
additional time to our country for the implementation of Resolution #
1609 on the "Activities of the Democratic Institutions in Armenia". The
time-limit for the compliance with the Resolution requirements has
been extended till January 2009.
Although with regard to separate issues, particularly, the rights
of the detainees, the EU Commissioner for Human Rights is to submit
a report to the PACE Monitoring Committee much earlier - before
the fall session, the overall results of Armenia's compliance with
its commitments will be summed up no sooner than at the beginning
of next year. The Azeri MPs, who stood out with their aggressive
behavior during the PACE hearings, considered the decision on giving
time to Armenia as the "successive evidence" of a partial attitude
towards our country. The fact was estimated in a likewise manner by
Mr. L. Zourabyan, L. Ter-Petrosyan's representative.
Even though Mr. Zourabyan singles out both positive and the negative
elements in the Resolution, he too, is dissatisfied with the fact that
"the Armenian authorities were given too much time".
After hearing L. Ter-Petrosyan's speech delivered during the June
20 demonstration, one may get an impression that the PACE is in
the ex-President's "pocket", that's why he offers our authorities
a specific kind of deal: to "mediate" and avert the danger of
depriving our country of the right to vote in return for releasing
the detainees. As we see, such "proposal for mediation" was ignored
not only by the Armenian authorities but also by the Parliamentary
Assembly.
Moreover, through the Resolution adopted in its summer session
on June 25, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
expressed regret that the Armenian opposition hadn't recognized the
decision of the Constitutional Court with regard to the February 19
presidential elections.
This means that the intention to dispute the election results
in the European Court - a propaganda bluff disseminated by the
pro-Ter-Petrosyan activists, has vanished into the air.
If, after all this, Mr. Ter-Petrosyan and his team members do not
keep their propaganda-oriented promise, they will find themselves
in a ridiculous situation, ignoring those clauses which are not
advantageous to them and at the same time demanding the implementation
of the remaining part of the Resolution. And if the pro-opposition
activists nevertheless decide to apply to the court, they will find
themselves in a much more ridiculous situation because the court will
never "fly over" the assessments made by the European observers.
However, it is obvious that having extended the time-limits for
Armenia's compliance with its commitments, the PACE has met the
opposition half-way with regard to many issues. In particular, the
Armenian authorities were offered not to prosecute individuals based
purely on police testimonies, as well as terminate the prosecution
of and grant pardon to those who neither committed violent crimes
nor made appeals for violence or otherwise had complicity in the
acts mentioned above. Such formulation which practically seems quite
acceptable gives way to ambiguous interpretations.
And Ter-Petrosyan will certainly try to take advantage of that in
the near future, since our ideas about the calls for violence or
the assistance provided to their authors very often stand in stark
contradiction to one another.
The PACE's specific "prescriptions" for developing trust in the
activities of the parliamentary committee investigating the March
1-2 events give way to uncertainty as well. In particular, it is
proposed that decisions be made based on the principle of consensus;
furthermore, they demand that the principle be also applied to the
opposition representatives who were elected as committee members by
advisory vote.
One can only imagine how the members of the NA interim committee will
work with Gevorik from the Armenian Pan-National Movement, and what
the outcome will be.
The PACE Resolution also calls on the Armenian authorities not to
introduce "unnecessary restrictions" to the "Law on Demonstrations";
this too, gives way to uncertainty and ambiguous interpretations as it
enables the Armenian authorities and opposition to interpret the term
"unnecessary restrictions" in their own way.
Anyway, we believe that after the PACE summer session the opposition
will have no other choice apart from initiating a dialogue with
the authorities.