“Hanrapetutyun” Party was burglarized
00:00, January 13, 2011 | News
On the night of January 10, 2011, unknown people broke into the office of Hanrapetutyun (Republic) Party and scattered the documents of human rights defender, and Hanrapetutyun board member, Artak Zeynalyan.
It is worth mentioning that another incident occurred on December 13, 2010 and in both of the cases, the perpetrators were the same. It should be noted that a criminal case was filed over illegal entry and burglary of the office based on Part 2, Article 177 of the RA Criminal Code/theft/, and it was inferred that there were no political motives. However, the fact is that the people, who are currently accused of committing the crime by the police, have not taken anything, they have only jumbled Artak Zeynalyan’s documents and didn’t even take money from the drawer. Moreover, the absence of fingerprints testifies that no hooligan attack was committed.
Artur Sakunts, head of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor noted that the perpetrators of the last two attacks were the same, which implicates that the directors and the implementers are the same. The fact that they did not leave any fingerprints means they acted as professionals, “Hooligan activity leaves criminal signs. No material damage was caused; it was simply a “warning”.
With regard to the initiated criminal case, human rights activist Artak Zeynalyan becomes a representative of the aggrieved party. He noted that apart from the two cases, there have also been other incidents, regarding some of which criminal cases were filed; however, not all incidences were reported to the police. Zeynalyan recalled that after the 2008 presidential elections, he and his wife received phone threats, and criminal cases were filed, but perpetrators have not been identified as of this date. Later Zeynalyan’s laptop, containing important data, was stolen from his apartment. The Erebuni Police Department gathered information regarding phone calls received by Zeynalyan; however, no criminal case was initiated, and instead, it was submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. With regard to the last two cases, Zeynalyan stated, “A week before the December 13th incident, a dead rat was found on the party office doormat, and prior to that a dead cat was found in front of the Saryan office entrance.” We haven’t disseminated any statement regarding those incidents, although these are not just accidents but I believe have some “hidden messages”.
According to the representatives of Armenian Helsinki Association and Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor, those “messages” were directed at Artak Zeynalyan and a statement, related to that fact, was disseminated.
Mikayel Danielyan, the head of Armenian Helsinki Association, mentioned in an interview with us that Artak Zeynalan had launched a serious inquiry regarding the March 1st incident and had serious facts: “The Prosecutor’s office does everything to hinder the March 1st cases from being revealed. Zeynalyan has also been promoting serious activity regarding Vahan Khalafyan’s case and in his version the Prosecutor’s office is totally unrealistic. In my mind, the authorities try to hinder Artak’s activity and undertake various steps in order to make Zeynalyan’s work and activity more difficult and, they also threaten him”. Danielyan further indicated that if the office is in jeopardy then, Zeynalyan might also be in danger.
And to the assessment of Avetik Ishkhanyan, the head of the Helsinki Committee, Zeynalyan is not the person who can be threatened with such actions. He also assessed the aforementioned cases as a threat towards Zeynalyan’s human rights’ activity: “I assess those encounters as a step made by someone from the state but I am sure they will never be revealed as activities coming from the authorities, as no illegal activities made by the authorities are ever revealed’.
People who order illegal entry into the office and make “illegal searches” are considered senseless by Ishkhanyan, as Zeynalyan’s activities are quite open and transparent and there are no secrets in his actions: “If the authorities of Armenia used reason they would realize that Zeynalyan’s activity is useful for the Republic of Armenia as his activities promote Armenia to become a lawful and transparent state.” Ishkhanyan mentioned that the incident, related to Vahan Khalafyan’s case and the aforementioned one, was open to everyone, and Zeynalyan’s opinion was familiar to RA society: “If Zeynalyan’s office was ransacked, and something was found and damaged, do you think all the pertinent evidence, which Artak Zeynalyan is going to submit to different instance courts, has vanished?”
However, Artak Zeynalyan, did not want to relate all the attacks to someone else and said: “My colleagues have the right to speculate about this although I can say nothing and suspect no one.”