CONFERENCE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
00:00, March 29, 2010 | Press ReleaseHead of Vanadzor office of Helsinki Civil Assembly Artur Sakunts, in an interview with lragir.am, dwelt on the situation over the upcoming conference of FIDH scheduled in April in Yerevan.
You refused signing the joint statement with the Institute for Civil Society which created grounds for discussions in the press. New developments followed it which, proceeding from responses, get quite a serious character. Many lawyers refused participating in the conference. Which is the reason why they refuse so easily to participate in a conference on human rights which Armenia needs so much?
It has been spoken about an international human rights conference in Yerevan since last year, when FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights) representatives arrived in Armenia. Naturally, Armenian human rights organizations were supposed to be included in the preparation works.
We learnt about the agenda of the conference accidentally from the FIDH web site. It had been worked out without our participation. First complaints aroused when we saw that the conference was to be started with Serge Sargsyan’s welcoming speech. His participation in a conference entitled “fair investigation” was incomprehensible for us. Speeches of the head of the Armenian Court of Appeals, Minister of Justice, and the Ombudsman were also planned. The Armenian prosecutor general was also invited. But no representative of a human rights organization was going to hold a speech.
What did the Armenian human rights defenders do to change the agenda and to include the necessary issues in it?
We initiated a number of meetings with NGOs both in the Civil Society Institute and separately. I have to note that Mikael Danielyan was not invited from the beginning. The incident, which happened to him in July 2008 was not even included in FIDH report. this is by the way.
A person who is responsible for terrible violence of human rights, who came to power through killings and election rigging was going to open the conference in case the suggestion of the wives of political prisoners to show Tigran Paskevichyan’s film “Choice” about political prisoners was refused.
I would like to underline that the preparation of the conference and the agenda took place in a very confidential atmosphere. We should not forget that the conference was initiated by an international human rights organization and it is dedicated to the human rights situation in Armenia. They just could tell us that it was their conference but when we started to resist they tried to find agreements to use the opportunity for giving serious information about Armenia. We were told that the agenda could not be changed and that the participation was limited, thogh changes were made in the agenda.
Serge Sargsyan’s opening speech was replaced by the speech of the CC head Gagik Harutyunyan, which is also unacceptable. The Institute of Civil Society comes out to hold speeches at its own conference.
The changes were made after our discontent. Arman Danielyan’s report on fair trial was also added. And it would be logical if the report was presented by another organization and not to the one who organized the conference.
This can be assessed as either mistrust or the conference is held in confidentiality and does not ensure diversity, which does not allow participation of other organizations. The statement of Artak Kirakosyan, the head of the board of Civil Society Institute is also surprising. He said that publicizing of any document was not planned but then the report on fair trial suddenly appears to which I immediately reacted.
It is also strange that their reaction by media outlets differed from mine.
One the one hand they said as if I had told them that I could sign under any text and on the other hand they said as if they had to agree with Paris.
My opinion is that the death of 10 and 200 injured people were not a result of a clash. This is the reality and my principle approach. To say that those people were killed due to the clash is immoral.
FIDH dealt with this issue in its new statement.
Formulations are changed but the format is the same. We have to record that as a result of our protest, the conference is changed cosmetically but no proposal of our was included in the agenda. Unfortunately, the impression is that you fight against a governmental structure for the sake of human rights.
In your opinion, what determined the atmosphere of confidentiality?
Recall that after our protests, FIDH president issued a statement which raised the issue of political prisoners and killings. It turns out that we forced them to say what they, in fact, had to say.
There a question-which institutions are responsible for the development of the agenda? If it is FIDH and Civil Society Institute then I absolutely don’t understand why an international human rights organizations and NGOs are not able to perceive our suggestions.
There is another important issue: it is said for many times that the conference is not only on Armenia. If it is so, then is the chairman of the Court of Cassation going to speak about Armenia or Congo? Is the human rights defender going to speak about Armenia or Nicaragua? Isn’t the Minister of Justice going to speak about Armenia? Are all these speeches interesting for other countries?
It is a conference on Human Rights, which was closed to human rights defenders. And the responsibility for this lies is put on the Institute for Civil Society and FIDH. This international organization still has a chance to save its face before April 6. Obviously, the president of FIDH is in time trouble.
You assert that the conference will be held in an atmosphere formed by the authorities? Then what is its sense?
Authorities try to prove that the situation is under control, and it can be changed through concrete steps and actions that do not correspond to reality. The conference will have a protocol, formal nature. This is another event of the authorities.
As far as I know, those organizations which have not decided on their participation, have applied to FIDH to make changes in the agenda.
I repeat that the conference is organized with the principle of confidentiality. They will face serious problems if during the process they change the principle of the confidentiality model.
However, how likely is the change of the agenda, there is little time left.
It is certainly unlikely, because the chairman of FIDH said in his interview with “Haykakan Zhamanak” daily that the authorities had had great participation in the logistics, he means the organizational issues and the conference logics.
In the interview the FIDH chairman answered all the questions with diplomacy…
I used the word logistics that he used in order to show that the logistics can’t change. There is so much confidentiality that even the chairperson could not say why Serge Sargsyan had refused to participate in the opening ceremony.
Who will participate in the conference? The number of those who refuse to participate is growing.
I do not know. They used to say that about 40 organizations should take part, now they do not mention any number. Now they say the conference will be open – one more change. How can anything be changed through protests in a conference dedicated to human right?
There are opinions that the conference is held in support of Serge Sargsyan in the context of the Armenian and Turkish relations, considering the fact that it will be dedicated to the genocide issue.
It is very strange that the genocide issue is discussed during a conference dedicated to investigation. The genocide issue is a question of political significance and the initiator of this issue is the father of football diplomacy Serge Sargsyan. After March 1, an outrageous thing happened when as a result of political persecutions a mass of political prisoners appeared, dealing with human rights was connected with politics. We have a politicized human rights defense sphere which was revealed within the frameworks of this conference.
Do we have the same process as after 2008 presidential elections, when the place and role of political parties became clear? We may say the same about human rights organizations.
As the chairman of the international organization says, the role of authorities in organizing such events is inevitable in the countries like Armenia. We must suppose which branch of government he meant. Clarification of political processes is conditioned by the behaviour of the authorities.
After March 1 events we had a great number of political prisoners and human rights protection was mixed with politics. The thing is that, if a political figure is acceptable then I will take up protection of his rights, if not, then I will not protect him. It means that there is politicized human rights defence, which was revealed within this conference. Human rights defence should not give assessments based on political purposes.
Who needs this?
Of course, the authorities and the civil society structures which support them. After the events of March 1, there was mistrust towards the civil society institute and with their behaviour they confirmed this mistrust.
Since it was stated about this conference on human rights during the latest rally and broad masses learnt about it, do you think it is possible to fail?
The fact that the opening ceremony was scheduled to be held in the theater of Opera and Ballet and was changed as a result of our protest shows the authorities avoided the resumption of protest actions at the Liberty Square.