This Is The Estimation Of The Prosecutor’s To Ombudsman’s Report
The General Prosecutor’s studied the extraordinary public report made by RA Human Rights Defender and drew clear conclusions. Which is – by that report the Ombudsman went beyond his commissions.
Moreover, the report includes unsigned, partial information exclusively based on the publications in the press. Armen Harutyunyan didn’t try to make use of the wide power given to the Ombudsman. He didn’t even try to check the righteousness of the information published in the press.
In this respect the Prosecutor’s estimated the report as “imperfect and partial”, which can be considered a political assessment. In general we can say that by this he tried to create an impression among the society, that the Ombudsmen is very much concerned about the settlement of the developments which followed “March 1”. But how can he speak about concern, in case when he didn’t make any proposals regarding the settlement of the existing problems.
After all what is the obligation of the Ombudsman – to deliver political speeches, or to make certain proposals to the competent bodies regarding the correction of certain falsifications? In this case not only did the report lack such proposals, but also the Ombudsman gave instructions to inquest bodies, something that is beyond his commissions.
Thus, why was it necessary for the Ombudsman to appear with an extraordinary report? He could have grounded his public report in the following way: “In case of the failure to settle issues of vital importance and violation of human rights, the Ombudsman has the right to appear with a public report.”
But A. Harutyunyan passed round the before mentioned legal base and underscored: “The contents and the structure of the report is the analyses of the presidential elections and the post-election developments.”
“By the way it is not the base of an extraordinary report envisaged by the law,” the General Prosecutor’s underscores and adds: “ In our view the Ombudsman has surpassed his commissions not only in terms of bases and objectives, but also in terms of his obligations.” It turned out that “the Ombudsman shoulders constitutional obligations, to give objective assessments to the created situation and look for ways out.”
But it is not clear from where the Ombudsman took those obligations; one thing is obvious – the Constitution doesn’t envisage these obligations for the Ombudsman.
It is very interesting that the Ombudsman doesn’t utter a word regarding the fact that Levon Ter-Petrosyan manipulates wide masses and that this manipulation has a very bad influence on them. Instead he expresses his admiration on the skill of the opposition leader in “massive unification and governing tricks”. In fact the Ombudsman over again gives political assessment to the tricks used by this or that candidate.
In this regard the Prosecutor’s gave a correct and strict assessment saying: “The ombudsman tried to observe the situation by the “sharpness” of the opposition, ignoring the fact that according to the results of the investigated criminal cases the “sharpness” of the opposition has serious connections with criminal liability, especially because the masses were inspired not only by their sharp speeches but also concrete breaches”.
Eventually according to the Prosecutor’s the Ombudsman is trying to give instructions to the law enforcers, which is also beyond his competences. The expressions such as: “it is necessary to clarify” or “…must become a subject of inquest,” testifies to the before mentioned fact.
The Prosecutor’s expressed its objections regarding the assessment of the Ombudsman given to March 1 developments. “The latter tries to explain it as a manifestation of extremisms by the opposition and the authorities. Whereas the extremism manifested by the authorities is that the latter didn’t properly elucidate the speeches made during the illegal demonstrations, instead they introduced facts regarding violations of the Constitutional rights of others, etc.”
Thus, according to the Prosecutor’s the Ombudsman overlooked the fact that the “peaceful” demonstrations were often followed by the breaches of social order as well as many other manifestations of massive and long-lasting violations of constitutional rights.”
To be continued