Could you please talk about the most upsetting issues in the armed forces which you can identify and why they are upsetting? Are there issues and if yes, which are they?

The most urgent issue is the protection of the soldiers. First of all, taking into consideration the number of incidents and the potential clashes on the front line it is necessary to minimize the number of casualties in the armed forces. Another issue of concern is the internal regulations and relationships within the army, particularly the regulation of non-statutory relationships. It is important to insure that the relationships between the servicemen themselves are monitored in order to avoid any kind of friction or criminal incident. In my opinion, these are the most crucial issues, and the authorities have not put sufficient efforts to solve them so far. Of course some efforts have been made, but they are not enough to address these issues. According to some statistical data, the number of fatalities that were the result of a breach of rules of internal discipline has declined in recent years. Nevertheless, the number of deaths in the armed forces remains almost constant.

The number of ceasefire violations by Azerbaijan is greater than before; therefore, the number of deceased soldiers has increased. This is the issue in the armed forces that I consider most vital. Of course, there will be people that will mention that in fact we are still at war, that there were incidents on the front line before and that there are and there still will be, nevertheless I think it is important to insure a more substantial level of defensive resources both through technical means and military training so that such incidents will not result in more casualties.

Regarding order and discipline in the armed forces, many experts and organizations have made suggestions before and they still do. We also make suggestions, however I do not see considerable change in the numbers. There are some strange death cases in the armed forces, such as electrocution, car accidents, or even injuries, murders, suicides, and intimidation leading to suicides, which are the result of internal disputes. For at least half of these cases the public and the family members of the deceased soldiers believe it is impossible to know the truth and reach justice. In the other cases, the families’ opinions either correspond to the conclusions of the preliminary investigation or the court verdict. However, the family members usually say: “No, there was no fair trial, we did not find out who murdered our son. They just qualified it as a suicide.”

There are some parents who are really tired of all this. Some think that their son is dead and now whatever they do it will not bring their son back. Perhaps they did not even go deep into the case. Maybe if they do, it will be possible for them to understand if there was a fair or unfair trial. Certainly, this is also an issue.

Another issue concerns the army being dragged into politics and the abuse of military resources. The army is regularly dragged into politics. During the presidential elections in 1996, the armed forces were brought to Baghramyan Street. During the protests of March 1, 2008 following the presidential elections, again the armed forces were brought into the streets. This was a gross violation of the Constitution. The army should not interfere in domestic affairs, nonetheless the authorities decided to violate the Constitution and involve the army. The army commanders obediently complied and participated in bringing pressure against the peaceful demonstrators. Having armed forces on the streets during peaceful public actions is pressure and drags the military into politics.

Another troublesome aspect of this issue is that of involving the army in the election process. This process involves very serious risks. During the national and parliamentary elections or during a referendum the army takes part in the elections, including controlling how the conscript soldiers vote. The soldiers are brought to the polling stations in groups. The solders cannot vote in their home districts and must vote where they are stationed, where they are brought to polling stations in groups and told how to vote!

We have heard numerous complaints from soldiers saying that prior to the elections everyone is warned that there will be serious problems in case there is one vote against the candidate suggested by their commanding officers (that candidate is usually the candidate from the ruling party).

This kind of intimidation is regular. Due to this practice, during every election period the ruling party has up to 10% of the votes “guaranteed” by the army. Thus, in this respect the situation in the army is totalitarian in nature. In order to combat this we along with other organizations have even in our frustration suggested that conscripts be withdrawen from the electoral registers and their right to vote be temporarily limited, just like some other rights of theirs that are temporarily limited.

We have had another suggestion also. We suggested that soldiers be given a short leave, of at least three hours, to those soldiers who are deployed at or near a center of population so that they will have a chance to choose whether they want to vote or not. Since there is twelve-hour period in which to vote, the soldiers can be divided into groups and leave their units without jeopardizing military readiness.

We raised the issue of large groups of soldiers being taken to the polling stations in cars where they were forced to vote, not to mention how they vote, that is another issue.

Why would the soldiers be forced to vote? It is their right or an obligation? When large groups of soldiers are put into cars and taken to polling stations, how is it possible for a soldier to say that he does not want to go or to vote? That is impossible.

It was proposed to include a point in the Electoral Code insuring that the promotional materials of the political campaigns are distributed evenly and freely in the military units. We know that there is always biased propaganda in the military units in favor of the candidate from the ruling party. We offered to have a board put in the units with campaign posters and materials. All of our proposals have been rejected by the authorities.

The third important issue in my opinion is corruption in the military. I have already talked about political corruption, however there is also a component of economic and procurement corruption. This problem is multilayered. We wonder who wins the bid for contracts or who the supplier of potatoes for instance is. All of this information is confidential by our current law.

Thus, it turns out that information about the suppliers of potatoes, toothpaste or toothbrushes is confidential. For example, it is even confidential on how they won the contracts, what price they offered for the products, how much they supply to the army, etc. If the information is not about the weapons and ammunition, why should it be a secret? There are so many things that should be open and transparent.

Since this sort of information is neither open nor transparent, public monitoring becomes impossible. For example I do not know whether the soldiers are provided with toothbrushes and soaps or they have to bring them from home, or maybe buy them or get them from somewhere else. There are many other issues that are not open for public viewing because they are considered confidential and information about them is prescribed by law. There are many people among the generals who have their own businesses and they can easily use the soldiers for the benefit of these businesses. It should not be acceptable. Soldier are not called to serve for these sort of things. I am not talking about the emergency cases for example when a road collapses and it needs to be opened quickly, or when there is a fire and soldiers are involved. In these cases it is reasonable to use soldiers for such things. I am talking about the cases when using soldiers or buying supplies for the military is illegally used to benefit private businesses. This is a type of corruption.

These are the kind of issues in the military that I can identify, for example the personal security issues, which are very poorly regulated, or the political involvement of the army and corruption. Perhaps there are other issues also, but at the moment they are not noticeable for me. How to solve these issues? This is much bigger a problem. A serious strategy is necessary to find solutions to these issues as is finding the political will to do it.

What consequences can they have?

Of course we can say that Armenia has overcome a certain phase of the war with Azerbaijan. It has been 21 years and Armenia has survived some major demographic, economic, and political challenges. However it is really difficult for me to say how we will do if we have to face other challenges. Of course we all want everything to be fine, but the issues mentioned above are worrisome. It is hard to tell how prepared we are in case another country equipped with great military resources decides to use those resources against us. Judging from the disgraceful and horrible policy of the Armenian authorities in a number of other spheres, such as the economy, industry, science, education, health service and so on, we can suggest that the situation in the army is no different. Certainly, it is difficult to make such judgments without being inside that system but just comparing the policies we can say that the situation is most likely the same; simply dreadful.

It is true that during the ceasefire violations and incidents on the Armenian side of the border the military provided proper responses. It is possible that other things were done which we do not know about, however I personally do not know in what condition our defense or the military reserves are in now just in case we have to face a nationwide challenge. Such a challenge will show what remains from our victory we had 21 years ago. Another challenge will show whether we became more powerful or vice versa much weaker. Nevertheless, these three major issues I mentioned obviously weaken the positions of our army.

Much has been said about the atmosphere of impunity in Armenia. Is it possible that the armed forces have not been part of this vicious phenomenon observed in so many other spheres? 

There are many examples such as in the case of a murder, grievous injury or any other serious crime where only the perpetrator, such as the murderer, is punished. This is not to deny that this is the best case scenario. However in too many cases, the unit commanders or the direct commander of the culprit are not held responsible, or in the best case, are being dismissed and then after some time they regain their position in another unit or even in the same unit.

This is impunity, which, unfortunately, has turned into a system and causes great damage to the RA defense. There are hundreds of cases like this when, I repeat myself, in the best case only the perpetrator is punished while the other responsible parties face only some administrative penalties, not to mention that these penalties are usually only temporary.

Since we talked about the murder cases and other fatalities in the armed forces, what do you think, how can the situation be brought under control? Is it possible to prevent these fatalities? 

For four years we have conducted in-depth research in the five regions of Armenia: Shirak, Aragatsotn, Armavir, Kotayk, and Gegharkunik. There are three extensive reports on these projects posted on our website.

Our lawyers went from house to house, school to school, village to village, called every single village head, sent letters, had one to one conversations, observed everything we could and created a large catalog for each region which includes the fatalities recorded in the RA Armed Forces since the ceasefire agreement of May 12, 1994. We examined the cases of fatalities of all those soldiers whose parents or family members we were able to find.

We have had information about other incidents also, however we either could not find at least one of the relatives of the soldier or they had all immigrated. We have done an analysis of all the cases which shows that they are the result of a violation of the ceasefire. the ones that are the result of diseases and the ones that are suicides, or intimidation leading to suicides, accidents, car accidents, negligence, etc. We created a database that resembles a journal with all pictures and copies of all important documents related to the cases. Of course this is hard work to do, both physically and psychologically.

This work revealed a very sad picture: for the last 21 years we have records of 600 fatalities for the five regions in total. Only 18-20% of that number are from ceasefire violations. The other 80% are the result of other causes we have already talked about. If we consider this number proportional to other regions, we might have an equal number of fatalities in the other five regions also. Under this assumption, the estimated total number can reach up to 1300. It might be even more since Yerevan which has the largest population has not been examined so far. The Ministry of Defense has made statements regarding fatalities in the army only within the past five to six years. When they are asked about the fatalities recorded in the army prior to that period, their answer is that the information is confidential and cannot be provided. Thus, we have to go from house to house, collect the information, and make a large catalog in order to understand the circumstances of each case.

In different regions we observed that for at least 20-30% of the cases the family members of the deceased soldiers do not agree with the official story of the death. Most frequently it is because of the discrepancy in the reports given for a murder or suicide: very often according to the official version the incident it is categorized as a suicide, however we are sure (we know but we cannot prove it) that in fact it was a murder. These inconsistencies are mentioned in the reports we have prepared. There is a special column where a comment is made for both the official hypothesis and the family members’ version.

Our lawyers are doing their best to examine any lawsuits that have been initiated also. I think this is the work that the Ministry of Defense was supposed to do a long time ago. Perhaps they have done it or have some information, I do not know. Even if they have carried out an examination they were supposed to make an analysis to find out the causes of all these incidents and to come up with some means or develop some sort of strategy to prevent these additional cases.

You mentioned that most requests for the provision of information are rejected by the Ministry of Defense for unknown reasons, even when that information seems to not have even a slight element of a national secret. 

The whole issue is about the classification and its seriousness. For example if the soldier died while on a special operation, then I think the details of that special operation can and should be classified. However, if the Ministry considers everything secret, then, from a legal point of view it is wrong, because if it is possible to obtain the information without violating the law, the information should not be declared and defined as a secret. For example, when asked a simple question about the number of deceased soldiers in Gyumri in 1994, they said it is a secret, whereas I went from house to house in Gyumri, collected the information and found out a number. Since they neither confirmed nor denied that number, I announced that number which can either correspond to reality or not. If it corresponds to reality, it turns out I was able to find out the official secret without violating the law. In other words, when something is defined as a secret in an unreasonable manner it is just done so for no good reason, especially when in fact the Ministry of Defense announces the names and the surnames of the deceased or wounded soldiers and provides short description of the incidents, such as the time, the date, the place, the year, etc.

This is why I think it is wrong to order the absolute classification of this information; it is ungrounded and ineffective. The secrecy should be defined to a limited number of cases, such as for the protection of public or national interest. This is my opinion, as an expert on the freedom of information.

Moreover, in the context of public interest the authorities can just say that they perceive the public interest in a certain way, while that perception may vary significantly from the perception that the public has on the notion of public interest. In this case it turns out that the authorities have nothing to do with the public and they just define some secrets on their own and spend our tax money as they want protecting them.

However, when the secret is defined in a reasonable manner it cannot be large-scale or broad. It should be specific, targeted and limited. I have already mentioned an example of an unreasonable limitation of information, when a certain number is classified but I can find it out another way, without violating the law. Well then it turns out it is not a secret. When they start classifying things that have nothing to do with the national security, we deal with a series of absurdities.

Although it is very difficult to talk about this issues in an abstract and theoretical manner and perhaps it would have been easier to bring specific examples, nevertheless everywhere in the world governments do their best to give out as little information as possible and only as a result of public pressure do things change.

In authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes, such as ours, the government tries to classify as much information as possible. They consider and announce a lot of information as secret in order to keep everything closed.

In different political, military, or geo-political situations the governments may demonstrate different behavior, however in the case of our country and other similar countries the situation is almost always the same: the authorities do their best to keep everything secret and not transparent. Furthermore, they start criticizing those who try to discover information or reveal something. They discredit these people and organizations, and declare them enemies and spies. This is common for countries like our country. This harms both the state and the society. In general it undermines the state when the public or state officials try to unnecessarily classify certain data when in fact the openness of that data does not harm the state, national or public interests in any way. Of course they say it does harm the state and they tell us that. I think if it was up to them they would classify everything.

I am convinced that many spheres related to the army could be much more open and transparent and we need that transparency. I believe that the state belongs to the people, not vice versa. The government and the army belong to us, not the opposite. In this respect we can say that the “child” we bring up is accountable to us, we must see the behavior of our child. I do agree that there are certain things and spheres that only appropriate specialists must know about, but these specialists must be entrusted by us. That is to say if it is really the President we elected, the National Assembly we elected, the minister who was appointed by our will and we gave them the power defined by law, then yes they can keep certain things secret , but they have to be accountable to appropriate bodies and by proper and transparent mechanisms.

For example, in case the National Assembly would like to listen to the Minister’s report, but it is secret information, then it can be done in a closed session. I trust the parliamentarian I voted for who then comes and assures me that everything is fine. But unfortunately, this government is not elected by the people and there is no such accountability. It is the child we brought up: I cannot give birth to a child, feed him, bring him up and then say go do whatever you want then you can come back and kill me or take my son to the army and have him killed there and not be responsible. I cannot allow myself to do that.

In a country like ours, the government and the authorities have a different approach. They say “We are the government, we decide what to do. You, the citizen, only pay the taxes and step aside; do not bother us with other issues.” Therefore, in my opinion, if it was up to them to decide they would have more state secrets than we already have. If we go back seven to ten years, the sentiments were even worse: then it was considered an absolute treason to talk or to write about the fatalities in the army. Anyone who would dare to do that was blamed for playing into the hands of the enemy and revealing our domestic problems. Afterward, beginning from 2008-2009 the authorities started to publicize the information themselves. Well, if it was treason then why are they doing it now? What happened? They suddenly became liberal or what?

In your opinion what was actually the reason behind this? 

Technological development, the internet, and the social networks all caused this and made it no longer possible for the authorities to keep these fatalities secret. They realized that this information must be declassified and that the people should be informed in a timely and proper manner about the fatalities, otherwise peoples’ imagination goes further and it turns into disinformation.

In this case the authorities had to yield, and they can hardly take away this privilege from the public since nowadays technology allows for the spreading of any sort of information about the situation on the border. If they decided to suppress it all, they would have to suppress not only the mass media, but to shut down the social networks, even the Internet, because they will not be able to restrain citizen journalism. People will find ways to disseminate the information, for example from abroad or by using fake accounts and it will be impossible to stop it.

The authorities understand this and realize that even for them and even in the current situation disinformation or misinformation is far worse and dangerous than telling the truth. In other words, I am more inclined to think that they had to yield against the technologies than to believe that they realized that the information does not do any harm to the society. In Azerbaijan, for example, they are still stuck in the old era thinking that it is better to conceal everything, to tell a lie, to say for instance that they destroyed a number of Armenian troops but never talk about their own casualties or to give a smaller number of casualties than the real number. Despite our constant aspirations for bringing back what was already surrendered, we are one step ahead.

Of course, in all authoritarian states there are constant aspirations to conceal, classify, or hide everything, but wait a minute, are they going to turn this country into a military state or a dictatorship? Are we to now say it is the Ministry of Defense, not the “Republic of Armenia” who is in charge? In that case I will know what to do: to change this state or to immigrate.

I would consider it a positive development if many things were declassified instead of being classified. For instance, as I already mentioned I am interested knowing about the suppliers of food to the army: Who are they? How are they selected? What price did they offer? Was the competition for selecting the suppliers fair or unfair? Of course we have some assumptions, we understand some things or guess but to be absolutely sure we need data and information. One should know for sure to be able to confirm or deny their assumptions. I cannot steal that information or obtain it illegally, so I have to apply to the authorities. Whereas when I do that they say it is secret information prescribed by law. As a result I cannot blame them for having or not having abuses in organizing the bidding of contracts. If the price for the potatoes is 60 drams in the market but according to the contract someone says that they buy potatoes for 71 drams, it will immediately become clear that there was fraud. This is why they define it secret by law. That secrecy gives grounds to assume that there is serious corruption in procurement; otherwise a large portion of procurement can be transparent and accountable.

Do you have any suggestion for solving the above mentioned problems or for somehow fixing the situation? What must be done?

The government must be formed by the people. This is a political solution. It is not possible otherwise! However, since we have this government and it is not formed by the people, the government must realize that whatever challenges Armenia is currently facing they should start with radical reforms in a number of spheres, including the army.

All the incidents and their causes in the armed forces must be investigated and measures must be taken to prevent things like them happening in the future. The professional level of the MoD personnel, officers, sergeants, subalterns and others must be improved so that they will abide by the law and be responsible and conscientious. If they follow the existing legislation conscientiously, human rights will be protected. I do not mind if they have additional specific knowledge on soldiers’ rights, however, even if they don’t, all they have to do is to be conscientious and remain within their competence and the vast majority of the problems will be solved. Criminal aspects must be eliminated from the army. The armed forces must stay away from politics. There should not be any political pressure on the servicemen, at all!

Mechanisms of civil and public control must be exercised in all the spheres where public money is spent. They must be real, not fraudulent or corrupted mechanisms. The public should receive answers to their questions. In the case of the army these mechanisms are poorly developed. There are only a number of NGOs that have free excess to the army, while the others have no such opportunity. I consider this discrimination: someone is allowed but others are not; someone enjoys the privilege while someone else does not.

I have even suggested that the authorities allow lawyers and human rights defenders, who expressed an interest, to go and live in the army for 10-20 days so that we can be in the same units where crimes were committed, to wear the same uniforms, to eat the same food, sleep in the same beds just like the soldiers. Then the lawyers will be replaced by other lawyers or journalists. It was an idea that could have been discussed or developed, however it was not even considered and was rejected.

We have developed a number of suggestions on the elimination of the murder cases and they are posted on our website. We have also proposed to substantially raise the allowance to a family in case of a soldier’s death, injury or disability, so that the families will not be in such terrible conditions in which they are now. A pension of 30,000 drams for a deceased child is beyond understanding.