PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION RELEASES CONTROVERSIAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 YEREVAN 000673 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/CARC, DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/27/2019 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KJUS KDEM AM SUBJECT: PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION RELEASES CONTROVERSIAL REPORT ON 2008 ELECTION VIOLENCE REF: A. YEREVAN 398 ¶B. 08 YEREVAN 865 YEREVAN 00000673 001.2 OF 003 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) On September 16, after more than a 15-month-long inquiry that the political opposition boycotted, the Ad hoc Parliamentary Commission on the March 1, 2008 events released its long-awaited report into the violence that followed Armenia's disputed 2008 presidential election. The 138-page report largely justifies the security measures undertaken by authorities on March 1-2, 2008; places the bulk of the blame for the violence on the opposition; and issues only limited criticisms of law enforcement bodies' role in the violence. Relatives of some of the March 1-2 victims decried the report, and accused the authorities of covering up their complicity in the deaths of their loved ones. The ombudsman gave a mixed reaction to the report. END SUMMARY. -------------- MARCH 1 COMMISSION FINALLY RELEASES REPORT -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On September 16-17, the Ad hoc Parliamentary Commission tasked by parliament in June 2008 to investigate Armenia's postelection violence on March 1-2, 2008 submitted to parliament its long-awaited report -- all 138 pages of it. In investigating the violent events that claimed the lives of eight civilians and two police, the commission justified the authorities' decision on March 1, 2008 to put an end to ten days of around-the-clock demonstrations organized by the opposition to dispute the results of Armenia's flawed February 2008 presidential election and impose a state of emergency. (NOTE: Boycotted by the opposition, the Ad hoc Parliamentary Commission was made up of, and dominated by, pro-government lawmakers. END NOTE.) ¶3. (SBU) In the first part of the report, which is dedicated to the pre-election period, the commission assigns the bulk of the blame for stoking the violence to opposition leader and presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian (LTP) -- allegedly for creating an environment of intolerance and hatred. In this regard, the commission faults LTP for ignoring the positive developments and accomplishments in the country and focusing exclusively on unsolved issues. The only other criticism in this section of the report is directed at Armenian television for biased and unbalanced coverage of political events that compounded the distrust of society toward the authorities. (COMMENT: Most of Armenia's media is either pro-government or subject to heavy influence by the executive branch. END COMMENT.) -------------- POLICE ACTIONS OK OVERALL -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The commission claims that overall police operated adequately and legitimately during the events, albeit with certain shortcomings. For instance, the report claims that the police inspection of weapons found at Freedom Square was improperly carried out, rendering the weapons useless as evidence and leaving numerous questions unanswered. The report also notes cases of violence and excessive use of force by the police against civilians during and after the dispersal of protesters from Freedom Square at dawn on March ¶1. -------------- STATE OF EMERGENCY LEGITIMATE -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The commission defended the imposition of the state of emergency by then-President Kocharian late on March 1, and claimed that it prevented further clashes. The commission acknowledges that it was unable to shed more light on the circumstances in which eight civilians and two policemen were killed on/as a result of the clashes on March 1, but urged law enforcement officials to do more to track down and prosecute the individuals responsible for those deaths. -------------- DISSENTING OPINIONS ON THE REPORT? -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The two members of the parliamentary commission representing the opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation - Dashnaktsutiun attached a special opinion to the report, YEREVAN 00000673 002.2 OF 003 where they disagreed with the depiction of police actions as lawful and proportionate. In the opinion, the Dashnak members also criticized the violent dispersal of the opposition tent camp in Freedom Square on March 1, and demanded that law enforcement bodies conduct an "additional investigation" into the March 1 fatalities. In spite of airing these reservations, both Dashnak commission members signed the report. "Just because we don't like a particular provision of the report doesn't mean that we must reject the whole report," the Dashnak MP Artsvik Minasian told reporters afterwards. ¶7. (SBU) The report was signed by all members of the commission except for the representative of the National Democratic Union party and Aram Karapetian, leader of the New Times party. Both MPs complained of receiving the report too late, and said that the report was compiled too hastily, leaving insufficient time for commission members to familiarize themselves with its content. The same complaint was seconded by the opposition Heritage faction in parliament, which claimed that the report was sent to parliamentary factions only half an hour before the session in which it was presented. Heritage subsequently dismissed the report as a whitewash. ¶8. (SBU) The Armenian National Congress (ANC) led by LTP, also rejected the report as a cover-up. According to ANC spokesman Arman Musinian, "this report exposes the main purpose of the authorities and that commission: to cover up the monstrous crimes of March 1 and those individuals who shot dead ten citizens of Armenia." Musinian added that "the commission has brilliantly accomplished that task." ¶9. (U) In a September 18 press conference, ombudsman Armen Harutiunian provided a mixed assessment of the commission's report. Rather ambiguously, the ombudsman stated that he agreed with the questions the commission posed in the report, but found the answers vague. Harutiunian said he was disappointed that the commission cited negative examples related only to the opposition's role in the unrest while it "completely spared the prosecutor's office." (COMMENT: The ombudsman and prosecutor general are notorious opponents. END COMMENT.) At the same time, the ombudsman credited the commission for some of the criticisms it leveled at the authorities and law enforcement bodies, and characterized the report as an overall step forward. -------------- COMMISSION PLAYING TO A WESTERN AUDIENCE? -------------- ¶10. (C) In August, Nikoyan told an Embassy contact that he would include in his reports citations from various human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), and Armenia's ombudsman's institution. He confided at the time that he had received such advice from Davit Harutiunian, fellow Republican Party member and head of parliament's standing committee on state and legal affairs, who urged Nikoyan to emphasize in his report the need for improved legislation and training in order to strengthen Armenia's law enforcement bodies. Harutiunian allegedly told Nikoyan that "Europeans love such things, and will gobble it up," adding that general calls for reforms would appease foreigners and thus take the pressure off the commission to assign blame for the deaths. At first blush, it appears that Nikoyan and the commission faithfully heeded Harutiunian's advice, as the report is full of suggestions for police training and legislative amendments aimed at strengthening law enforcement capacities. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶11. (C) For those in Armenian society who hoped the March 1 commission's report would promote much-needed truth and conciliation after the disputed 2008 election and postelection violence, the report comes as a major disappointment -- but surely not a surprise. For those who wanted to know who was ultimately responsible for the ten deaths, the report also comes up -- again not surprisingly -- woefully short. In the imperfect March 1 commission, authorities had a unique opportunity to address the wounds from last year's election and violence. Instead, they served up a highly-flawed document that serves only to perpetuate the lingering distrust, cynicism, and general unease average citizens feel toward their public officials. The fact that the country's largest opposition group boycotted the process YEREVAN 00000673 003.2 OF 003 entirely is further evidence of Armenia's continued political polarization. YOVANOVITCH