“Human Rights Defender’s OfficeTurns into a ‘Service Provider’ for the Authorities” states Artur Sakunts
00:00, March 29, 2011 | News
On April 1, 2011, the Human Rights Defender’s Office circulated a message that the Rapid Reaction service will no longer operate due to inefficiency and lack of resources.
However, indirect contradiction to that stated message, Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan pointed out that Rapid Reaction service is very important and essential, so they will not dissolve the activities during working hours and that the operating phone number 091 008 817 will continue to accept calls for processing urgent complaints.
During an interview with “hetq.am” Artur Sakunts, Head of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office, expressed his surprise regarding the existing contradictions over the legal assessments of Rapid Reaction service as stated in the HRDO briefing message. Sakunts questions “why and how the human rights defender assesses the Rapid Reaction service as ineffective”?“How come the service was effectively functioning before the newly-appointed HRD Karen Andreasyantook office”? In fact, according to Sakunts, it was functioning adequately and numerous references can verify it.
“We disagree with the assessment presented by the human rights defender regarding the Rapid Reaction service”, notes Sakunts. If according to the newly-appointed Ombudsman, the Rapid Reaction service wasn’t functioning by law or didn’t regulate on sound legislative basis, how is the service going to continue running? On what basis is the working group, set up by HRD Karen Andreasyan, going to clarify the structure of the new Rapid Reaction service, its functions and authorities? Artur Sakunts would also like to know what opinion the previous Ombudsman Armen Harutyunyan holds regarding the legal assessment of the newly-appointed HRD Karen Andreasyan, a candidate of Legal Sciences, who states that the Rapid Reaction service isn’t a requirement of law.
“The newly-appointed Ombudsman carries out his obligations aiming to rescind everything and ‘begin a new’ instead of developing or adding to the existing models. “Moreover, such a contradictory statement is disconcerting, especially as the Human Rights Defender’s Institute is turning into a “service provider” to function and render services to various state institutions instead of the citizens”, states Artur Sakunts.
In Sakunt’s opinion, the changes in the Human Rights Defender’s Office will now continually attract the attention of the public and human rights protective NGOs.
www.hetq.am