Attorney, “Law enforcement agencies stand behind disappearance of Bahraini national in Armenia”
16:03, February 2, 2016 | News, Other newsToday attorney Tigran Safaryan brought the issue of Bahraini civic activist Fadhel Radhi, who had been lately in Armenia, before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In his interview to Aravot.am, the attorney said that according to Rule 39 of the Rules of ECtHR, he had requested for immediate intervention by the European Court to compel the Armenian Government not to extradite Fadhel Radhi.
According to the attorney, he was informed that the ECtHR had received the application and should address it very expeditiously in compliance with Rule 39. “There, he will face a real risk of suffering torture. Also, as we have already reported before, Fadhel Radhi in fact disappeared very late in the evening in circumstances that we find very suspicious. We do have serious reasons to doubt that as a result of such disappearance, they will attempt to use other ways to send him to Bahrain”, Tigran Safaryan said.
Note that today, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor also issued a statement on the disappearance of Fadhel Radhi. The statement reads that he was to be released from ‘Nubarashen’ penitentiary back on January 30 as his detention period expired. Yet, HCA Vanadzor was informed yesterday that Fadhel Radhi’s “friends” had already come and taken him away.
In response to our question on who might have stood behind Radhi’s disappearance, Tigran Safaryan answered that according to the facts at their disposal, “it were definitely only the country’s security and law enforcement agencies that might have organized it.”
“No other forces might have done it.” When asked why the Armenian side intended to extradite Radhi specifically to Bahrain, Mr. Safaryan said that he had no idea, “I cannot explain it. The issue of extradition might have been considered and resolved under both our legislation and the international legislation. It entails a particular process. If the Minister of Justice decided it necessary to extradite him, she should have applied to a court of law and only then the person might have been extradited based on the court ruling.”
He noted that during court proceedings, they might have submitted their counter-facts, and if any of the parities was discontent with the court ruling, it might have been appealed. “However, it turns out that the Armenian Government and authorities decided not to take this long and complex road and resolve the issue this way.”