VZCZCXRO1182
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHYE #0514/01 1751442
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 231442Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7713
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 YEREVAN 000514 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR A/S KRAMER AND DRL, AND DAS BRYZA AND 
EUR/CARC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KDEM KJUS AM
SUBJECT: ARMENIA'S OMBUDSMAN HOLDS HIS OWN AT PARLIAMENTARY 
HEARINGS ON MARCH 1 EVENTS 
 
REF: YEREVAN 421 
 
YEREVAN 00000514  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
(U) Sensitive but unclassified. Please protect accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) In late May Armenia's Prosecutor General and 
Minister of Justice finally responded to the critical April 
25 report issued by Armenian Human Rights (Ombudsman) Armen 
Harutiunian that assailed the authorities for the violent 
March 1-2 post-election crackdown that left ten citizens dead 
(reftel).  Instead of supplying the much-anticipated answers 
that Armenian society had hoped for, the two top law and 
justice officials viciously counter-attacked, criticizing the 
Ombudsman for politicizing the situation and exceeding his 
mandate.  In a public June 5 parliamentary hearing, however, 
where all three officials addressed the report's content and 
answered questions afterwards, Harutiunian ably held his 
ground -- strengthening Armenia's nascent Ombudsman 
institution in the process. END SUMMARY. 
 
---------------------- 
OMBUDSMAN UNDER ATTACK 
---------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) For almost a month after the Ombudsman's critical 
ad-hoc report was issued on April 25, silence prevailed in 
Armenia's official circles.  But at the end of May -- and 
coincidentally when the Ombudsman was out of the country -- 
the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of Justice 
both released "objections" to the report, questioning whether 
the Ombudsman even had the mandate to publish such a report 
in the ad-hoc format that he chose.  At the same time, 
representatives of the top law and justice bodies began 
appearing on various TV stations, including Armenian public 
television -- Armenia's most watched channel, which to that 
point had declined covering the report -- where they 
aggressively slammed the report as biased, politicized and 
pro-opposition.  In spite of the uproar, however, two 
parliamentary committees, those on Human Rights and European 
Integration, decided to hold hearings on the report on June 
¶5. 
 
---------------------- 
OMBUDSMAN STRIKES BACK 
---------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) The June 5 hearings were well attended, including 
many MPs, NGOs, human rights activists, and representatives 
of international organizations.  In a methodically-prepared 
address, Harutiunian first commended the fact that the 
hearing was taking place, commenting "better late than 
never."  He then struck back at the Prosecutor General (PG) 
and Minister of Justice (MoJ), asserting that they had 
perverted the content of his report, mischaracterized its 
major points, and taken phrases out of context.  He contended 
that the two officials had distorted his report in order to 
create a "straw man" that would fit their criticisms.  He 
concluded by saying that the authorities could either seek 
the truth or try to suppress it.  On the same day, 
Harutiunian posted on his website detailed and legally 
substantiated responses to the PG's and MoJ's objections. 
 
------------------------------ 
RULING PARTY GOES ON OFFENSIVE 
------------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) A well-rehearsed attack by MPs from Armenia's ruling 
Republican Party (the party of new President Serzh Sargsian) 
followed the Ombudsman's address.  Instead of discussing the 
report's content, most Republican MPs attacked Harutiunian's 
character and the legality of his actions, asserting that his 
unsolicited report was politically motivated to smear the 
authorities.  Some blamed him for excluding items from the 
report that had in fact been included, and then mentioned 
things being included in the report that had not been raised 
at all.  MP Armen Ashotian, the Republicans' ambitious, young 
and very public attack dog, alleged the Ombudsman had 
consulted with the international community in preparing the 
report, and was hence carrying out foreigners' orders.  Some 
of Ashotian's colleagues even went as far as to blame the 
Ombudsman for the terrible human rights situation in the 
country, alleging that he had not been carrying out his job 
well.  He was also bluntly reminded several times about the 
fact that he used to work for recently departed President 
 
YEREVAN 00000514  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
Kocharian, whom he criticized in the report. (NOTE:  Not all 
Republican MPs carried water for the authorities. See para 7 
below. END NOTE.) 
 
------------------------------- 
OMBUDSMAN SCORES PUBLIC VICTORY 
------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The Ombudsman deftly parried the questions that 
followed his address, subtly mocking the most absurd ones and 
explaining the basics of his institution's work. (COMMENT: 
Established in 2004, the Ombudsman institution is a 
relatively new concept for Armenia, and it is conceivable 
that not even its legislators, who were born in a different 
country with a different mentality, have a well-informed idea 
of what functions such an institution serves. END COMMENT.) 
Harutiunian confessed in the Q&A session that working as an 
Ombudsman had radically changed his perspective on Armenia's 
human rights situation.  He said that "the Armen Harutiunian 
of today, and the one of two and half years ago -- when he 
worked for Kocharian -- were two entirely different persons." 
 He also said that he does not claim that his report is 
perfect; however, he asked some questions that society 
couldn't ask, and insisted that these need to be answered. 
 
------------------------------------ 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL TANKS AT HEARINGS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶6. (SBU) Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepian took the podium 
after the Ombudsman's appearance had concluded with cheers 
from the gallery.  Instead of rebutting Harutiunian, however, 
the PG cited extracts from his initial objections.  His 
speech, which resembled more an accusatory statement, was 
greeted with inauspicious silence by committee members. 
(COMMENT: The cornerstone of the PGs and MoJ's objections 
were that the Ombudsman had exceeded his mandate.  However, 
Armenia's Law on the Ombudsman clearly states that he can 
publish reports on violations of human rights.  By the end of 
the hearings, it seemed that this point had been generally 
accepted.  The PG appeared to have embarrassed himself at the 
podium, which national media documented in their articles the 
following day. END COMMENT.) 
 
------------------------------ 
PG GRILLED BY A RULING PARTY MP 
------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) During the Q&A session with the PG, Republican Party 
MP Davit Harutiunian (no relation to the Ombudsman), who also 
heads the parliamentary committee on State and Legal Affairs, 
unexpectedly went after the PG, asking Hovsepian whether 
there was a single statement in the Ombudsman's report that 
required clarification.  Hovsepian refused to answer, saying 
that he and the MP could talk about this in private. 
Harutiunian also drew the gallery's attention to the fact 
that the objections of the PG's office and those of the MoJ 
were suspiciously similar, and some extracts had been copied 
and/or pasted from each other. 
 
------------- 
PG STONEWALLS 
------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) The PG did not provide a single responsive answer to 
any of the questions asked by various participants at the 
June 5 hearings.  MPs from the Heritage Party, the sole 
parliamentary opposition, lawyers of detained political 
activists, and human rights activists bombarded the PG with 
questions about March 1, the ad-hoc report, and specific 
criminal cases against detained political activists. 
Hovsepian simply ignored many of the questions, frequently 
asserting the need for secrecy in the investigation.  He also 
went out of his way to insult Seda Safarian, the sister of 
Heritage MP Stepan Safarian and a lawyer who is defending 
some of the detained political activists, by telling her "to 
keep her breath for the court room, where it is more needed." 
(NOTE: A/S Kramer will meet with Heritage MPs during his 
visit, including Safarian. END NOTE.) 
 
¶9. (SBU) When asked by Heritage MP Safarian why Armenia's law 
enforcement bodies have failed to date to show in full, 
unedited form the footage that they took on March 1-2, the PG 
admitted the existence of such footage but said that 
corresponding extracts have been attached to criminal case 
materials, and that the PG's office did not have a moral 
propaganda function.  (COMMENT: Immediately following the 
 
YEREVAN 00000514  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
crackdown, Armenian public television showed carefully 
selected extracts in an effort to cast blame for the violence 
of March 1-2 on opposition activists.  END COMMENT.)  The PG 
also declined to answer questions about the legal status of 
Levon Ter-Petrossian's de facto house arrest; he and other 
state bodies have consistently denied LTP was/is under house 
arrest. (COMMENT: LTP was under de facto house arrest until 
late April, after being told on March 1 that he could leave 
his home only if he agreed to forego his state-provided 
security detail.  This changed in early May, when he was 
allowed to leave his home with his detail, as long as he gave 
30 minutes advance warning on his intended movements. END 
COMMENT.) 
 
--------------------------- 
JUSTICE MINISTER SAVES FACE 
--------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Minister of Justice Gevorg Danielian, drawing some 
lessons from the heated debates that preceded his trip to the 
podium, delivered a more constructive address.  While he did 
not question the professionalism or permissibility of the 
Ombudsman's report, he argued that the format in which the 
report was prepared made it very difficult for law 
enforcement and other state bodies to respond.  (COMMENT: 
According to Embassy contacts, people who were sitting next 
to the PG during the MoJ's presentation at the hearings heard 
the PG angrily exclaiming, "he changed it," indicating that 
Danielian had ostensibly broken a pact to deliver equally 
harsh criticism of the Ombudsman.  END COMMENT.) 
 
------------------------------------ 
SOME COALITION PARTNERS NOT AS TOUGH 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶11. (SBU) The day-long hearings concluded with 
representatives of all five parliamentary factions delivering 
brief addresses.  In comparison with their coalition partners 
from the Republican Party, members of the junior coalition 
partner Prosperous Armenia (PA) party went easier on the 
Ombudsman.  PA's Aram Safarian declared that the institution 
of the Ombudsman had finally been established in Armenia, and 
that all of his party's comments were aimed to help rather 
than to criticize.  Dashnak MPs expressed similar views, 
despite the fact that one of its MPs, Alvard Petrosian, had 
slammed the Ombudsman a day before, charging that he was 
trying to please the opposition with this report. Petrosian 
claimed that the PG and the MoJ objections were fair, since 
it is their duty to protect the interests of the state. 
 
------------------------------------- 
PARLIAMENTARY AD-HOC COMMITTEE NEEDED 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) Artashes Avoyan, an MP from Orinats Yerkir -- now a 
loyal coalition partner but rabidly oppositionist until the 
disputed February presidential election -- sharply criticized 
the report.  Republican MP Rafik Petrosian commented that the 
report, instead of becoming a tool for cooperating with the 
law enforcement bodies, aimed only to criticize them, and 
accused the Ombudsman of adopting the views of the 
opposition, who longed for power through illegal means. 
However, despite differences of opinion, all speakers from 
the various factions admitted the need for the creation of an 
ad-hoc parliamentary commission for investigating the 
election aftermath.  (NOTE:  MPs from the Heritage party 
faction did not make any concluding speeches, since they were 
boycotting the end of the hearings following a refusal by the 
moderator to allow one of their members to speak.  END NOTE.) 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Even though the hearings did not provide the 
answers sought by the Ombudsman in his ad-hoc report, they 
served a useful purpose by publicizing the report, and by 
spurring at least some discussion among public officials of 
the tragic election aftermath.  The hearings showed that 
there is an acute need in Armenian society to talk about 
these issues.  By resorting to often absurd objections to 
avoid answering these questions, the authorities only delay 
the moment when they will have to give an accounting of what 
truly transpired on March 1-2.  END COMMENT. 
PENNINGTON