On November 3, 2014, Peace Dialogue NGO received RA Administrative Court’s (Judge Arman Dilanyan) refusal to satisfy Peace Dialogue NGO’s lawsuit over obligating the Ministry of Defense to provide necessary information.

Peace Dialogue NGO, in cooperation with Dutch organization PAX, initiated Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia project aimed at improving the human rights situation in the Armed Forces. In addition to other activities, it is intended to carry out a monitoring of death cases in the RA Armed Forces and to create a database accessible to public.

Within the framework of Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia project, Peace Dialogue NGO sent an inquiry dated 03.03.2013 to the RA Minister of Defense requesting that they provide official information on the death of soldiers for the period of 2010-2011, including the full names of the deceased soldiers, the location of the incident, date, unit number, unit commander’s full name and title, the cause of death and a brief description of the incident.

In response to this inquiry, the Head of RA MoD Staff G. Hayrapetyan, in his MoD/510-AG-716 letter dated 06.12.2013, provided information about the fatalities in the armed forces that resulted in the death of soldiers for the period of 2010-2011. Peace Dialogue NGO had no information about those fatalities.

In the enquiry dated 21.01.2014, Peace Dialogue NGO once again asked the Minister of Defense to provide similar information but this time for the period of 2007-2009.

In response to the enquiry, the Head of RA MoD Staff G. Hayrapetyan, in his MoD/510-AG-64letter dated 14.02.2014, refused to provide the requested information.

After receiving the rejection letter from the RA MoD, Peace Dialogue NGO sent an enquiry dated 10.04.2014 to the RA MoD, which presented objections regarding the rejection and arguments that the information requested by the NGO must be provided under the law. After not receiving a response within 71 days (2 months), the NGO once again sent an enquiry dated 21.06.2014 to the Ministry of Defense, requesting them to provide a response to the organization’s enquiry dated 10.01.2014. The administrative body, however, failed to respond to the mentioned enquiries, thus Peace Dialogue NGO once again sent an enquiry (dated 12.08.2014) to the RA Minister of Defense.

As a result, RA Minister of Defense failed to respond to Peace Dialogue NGO’s enquiries dated 10.04.2014, 21.06.2014 and 12.08.2014, while RA Ministry of Defense failed to provide the information requested by Peace Dialogue NGO with the enquiry dated 21.01.2014.

After losing any hope of receiving an answer, the organization filed a lawsuit noting the legal obligation the Ministry of Defense has to provide the necessary information. In the appeal the organization presented arguments and explanations proving that it was illegal and unjustified of the Ministry of Defense not to  provide the necessary information requested by Peace Dialogue NGO in its enquiry dated 21.01.2014.

In addition to the aforementioned arguments and explanations in its legal request Peace Dialogue NGO also presented the reasons why the organization failed to file the lawsuit to the court within the set deadlines.

After receiving the MoD/510-AG-64 letter dated 14.02.2014 from the Head of RA MoD Staff G. Hayrapetyan within a month period, Peace Dialogue NGO did not file a lawsuit to the Administrative Court, thus, in fact missing the appropriate deadlines for filing a lawsuit to the court provided under Article 72 of the Administrative Procedure Code. The deadline was missed for justifiable reasons.

In a letter sent on February 14, the Ministry of Defense refused to provide the information requested by Peace Dialogue NGO. After receiving this letter, Peace Dialogue NGO sent an enquiry dated 10.04.2014 to the Ministry of Defense and presented objections regarding the rejection and arguments that the information requested by the NGO must be provided. After not receiving a response within the mandated 71 days (2 months), the NGO once again sent an enquiry dated 21.06.2014 to the Ministry of Defense, requesting them to provide a response to the organization’s enquiry dated 10.01.2014. The administrative body, however, failed to respond to the mentioned enquiries, thus Peace Dialogue NGO once again sent an enquiry (dated 12.08.2014) to the RA Minister of Defense.

It is obvious from the contents of the enquiries that they were sent with an aim to obtain information and solve the problem. The enquiries are not just reminders; instead, they are documents with relevant content which reveal the nature of the requested information and explain why the requested information is available to the public, as demonstrated by the information presented concerning the deaths in 2007 – 2009. Therefore, it was not an inaction demonstrated by the organization when missing the deadline of filing a lawsuit, instead the organization was busy with finding reasonable and effective measures to solve the problem.

In addition, to the mentioned enquiries were sent at intervals of 1-2 months and thisin its turn caused the delay in presenting a plea. There is an explanation why there were intervals in sending the enquiries. The reason is that, the enquiries sent to the Ministry of Defense are always delivered with violation of a 5-day period regulated by the RA Law on Freedom of Information.

As a rule, the responses to enquires are received within 20-30 days. To substantiate the mentioned facts, the copies of RA MoD responses were attached to the plea, which prove that the responses are made in violations of the dates set by law. This is also substantiated by the report on the Human Rights Situation in the Armed Forces published by Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly Vanadzor. The report includes a graphics demonstrating the enquiries sent by the organization in 2013 and the chronology of the responses.

Only after not receiving the mentioned responses Peace Dialogue NGO consulted with a lawyer. The lawyer also needed some time to become familiar with the case and to prepare relevant legal documents.  There are justifiable reasons for missing the deadline set for becoming familiar with the case and preparing relevant legal documents.

Thus, after receiving the rejection letter the organization did not demonstrate inaction, instead it took all necessary action to obtain information. This substantiate that action lawsuit filing deadline was missed for a valid reason.

However, the Administrative Court rejected a motion to recover the missed procedural deadline and the case was dismissed. According to RA Administrative Court Judge Arman Dilanyan: “the organization’s second enquiry was not given a status of complain arbitrary, instead it was done to give favorable conditions to the organization for calculating the procedural deadlines. However, even in this case, the organization missed the deadlines.”

Thus, the second, the third, and the fourth enquiries, which were sent to present the organization’s position towards the MoD’s rejection of providing relevant information, and to actually obtain information from them, was accepted by the court as a way to win some time and a “rogue” attempt to avoid violation of deadlines. Whereas, in fact, at that time the organization still hoped to receive the requested information and had no wish to file a lawsuit.

Taking into consideration this “analysis”, the Court, having the opportunity to choose between the individual’s right to effective judicial protection and ensuring legal certainty in the application of the constitutional principle, came to the following conclusion: “… in this situation the need for ensuring legal certainty in the application of the constitutional principle is of more importance.”

Since May 2014 Peace Dialogue NGO has been carrying out a research study among young people on issues such as RA domestic and foreign policy, security, etc. Several other articles and analysis based on the research results will be presented in the future.

In this article we touch upon the transparency of state and non-state institutions and the level of trust that young people have towards these institutions.

The interactive infographics (Infographic 1, Infographic 2) attached to the article demonstrate what opinion young people have about the Office to the President, National Assembly, Government, Armed Forces, Police, Judicial System, Ombudsman, international organizations and NGOs, and the level of Church’s transparency. The infographics also demonstrate how much trust young people have towards these institutions.

The survey results show that the most trustworthy institutions for young people are the Army, the Church, NGOs and international organizations. They have little trust in almost all governmental institutions, be it the Office to the President, National Assembly, Government, Police, Judicial system or any other. In the first “honorary” positions are the Office to the President, Government, and National Assembly. The latter, respectively, were considered non-transparent and closed. Moreover, the Office to the President, according to respondents, is the most closed body.

Only 7.9% of young people consider the armed forces completely transparent.  It should be noted, that the armed forces enjoy the ultimate public trust compared to other Government and law enforcement agencies. In the same study, in response to the relevant questions, 24.8 % of the respondents agreed, while 25.4% of the respondents agreed to some extent with the statement that the problems and incidents in the army should not be raised, because it negatively affects the reputation of the army.

Unlike the Army, which level of transparency did not bother the participants much, 40% of the survey participants consider the Church both open and reliable: probably once or twice they had a chance to check out the Church’s reports.

It is noteworthy that the lion’s share of “I do not know”, “Not sure” responses (respectively 18.1% and 17.3% of the respondents) given to the questions regarding transparency and trust fall for the RA Office of the Ombudsman: young people are not informed or have no idea about the activities of this institution.

Infographic 1

Infographic 2

This analysis is based on the database of sociological research study. The research study was carried out among young people aged 18-25 in Yerevan and several communities (Yerevan, Vanadzorm Ijevan, Gavar, Goris, Achajur Sarigyugh, Sevkar, Margahovit, Saral, Noratus, Gandzak, Shinuayr) of Tavush, Lori, Gegharkunik and Syunik regions of Armenia in July 2014.

Due to resource restrictions the sample size of the research was set to 480 individuals implemented by quota sampling. Quota sampling was done appropriate to the residence (capital-city-village), gender, age and “student”, “not student” quotas. The research was carried out with “face-to-face interview” method. The sampling error is 4.4%. The reliability level is 95%.

The research was carried out in the framework of the Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia project of Peace Dialogue NGO supported by PAX organization

PAX is a Dutch civil society organization that works with its partners for peace, reconciliation and justice worldwide. The organization supports local peace efforts in conflict areas and builds bridges, nurture mutual understanding and improve disrupted relations between groups. Pax aims to prevent conflict and to build a peaceful, democratic and just society.

Peace Dialogue NGO carried out a research among young people on issues such as RA domestic and foreign policy, security, etc. The second analysis based on this research touches upon the expediency of Armenia’s integration either into European Union or Customs Union, as well as the pros and cons of integration. (See the first analysis here)

480 young people from different regions and communities of Armenia, who participated in the survey, share the same expectations and aspirations in this regard (Infograph. 1). The number of votes in favor of joining the Customs Union is 232 (48.3%). The number of votes in favor of joining European Union is 206 (42.9%). 32 participants mentioned that they do not have enough information about these structures and 10 participants found it difficult to answer the question.

The survey included additional questions to find out the intentions of participants who were in favor of joining the first or second union. Consequently, the survey helps to find out what benefits there are in joining the Customs Union or European Union and what favorable and unfavorable conditions there are for Armenia according to young people who participated in the survey.

From the second and the third infographics shown below, it becomes clear what expectations and anticipations have those who voted in favor of Armenia’s joining Customs Union or European Union.

Accordingly, 232 participants who voted in favor of Armenia’s joining the Customs Union believe that the most important pre-requisite for joining this union is that it will create opportunities for economic development. The second pre-requisite is the security.

89 participants out of 206, who see Armenia’s future with European Union, expressed this wish because of human rights protection.

62 participants expressed an opinion that Armenia can reach economic development in case it joins the European Union not the Customs Union.

It is worth mentioning that the Human Rights issues were on the first place for those who voted in favor of joining the European Union, while these same issues were on the last place for those who were in favor of joining the Customs Union.

The facts that the majority of Armenians agree to be deprived of their freedoms but to join the Customs Union and that they are ready to sacrifice human rights in exchange for economic benefits, is indicated by the analysis of young people’s responses to another question of the survey (Infographic 3)

To the question “What do you consider the most urgent issue for Armenia?” the participants of the survey were to choose three answers and classify them according to importance: first, second, and third place.

Consequently, according to them the most urgent problems for Armenia are those connected with material welfare of people: unemployment (Cumulative 69.9%), poverty (64.2%), and emigration (63.5%).

The above mentioned problems were out of competition compared to some other sensitive topics in the survey, such as human rights violations (35.8%), re-escalation of war (30.4%), NK conflict (29.3%), recognition of Armenian Genocide (24.3%), corruption (23.7%), falsification of election results (23.1), not to mention about some “minor” problems, such as the blockade of Armenia, weakening of Armenia’s foreign policy, high level of crime, monopoly and lack of competition, low level of education, loss of moral values,  access to quality health care, etc.

 Perhaps, today the biggest issue for young people, besides the social problems, is the death cases of soldiers in peacetime: 53.8 % of respondents mentioned this issue.

Infographic 1

Infographic 2

Infographic 3

Infographic 4

This analysis is based on the database of sociological research study. The research study was carried out among young people aged 18-25 in Yerevan and several communities(Yerevan, Vanadzorm Ijevan, Gavar, Goris, Achajur Sarigyugh, Sevkar, Margahovit, Saral, Noratus, Gandzak, Shinuayr) of Tavush, Lori, Gegharkunik and Syunik regions of Armenia in July 2014.
Due to resource restrictions the sample size of the research was set to 480 individuals implemented by quota sampling. Quota sampling was done appropriate to the residence (capital-city-village), gender, age and “student”, “not student” quotas. The research was carried out with “face-to-face interview” method. The sampling error is 4.4%. The reliability level is 95%.

The research was carried out in the framework of the Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia project of Peace Dialogue NGO supported by PAX organization.

PAX is a Dutch civil society organization that works with its partners for peace, reconciliation and justice worldwide. The organization supports local peace efforts in conflict areas and builds bridges, nurture mutual understanding and improve disrupted relations between groups. Pax aims to prevent conflict and to build a peaceful, democratic and just society.

Based on the observations of Peace Dialogue NGO, 38 fatalities were recorded in the RA Armed Forces for the period from January-September of 2014. 13 of the recorded cases occurred in the territory of Armenia, the other 25 cases in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Based on the preliminary information, 20 of the cases are a result of ceasefire regime violation:

1. Karen Galstyan
2. Armen Hovhannisyan
3. Garnik Torosyan
4. Arayik Babayan
5. Arthur Ohanjanyan
6. Erik Gasparyan
7. Garik Balayan
8. Narek Poghosyan
9. Boris Gasparyan
10. Andranik Yeghoyan
11. Armen Avetisyan
12. Movses Gasparyan
13. Sargis Abrahamyan
14. Khachatur Baghdasaryan
15. Ararat Khanoyan
16. Ashot Asoyan
17. Zorik Gevorgyan
18. Sargis Movsisyan
19. Aram Grigoryan
20. Mher Hakobyan

3 soldiers died because of health issues:

1. Edik Shahnazaryan
2. Hayk Makaryan
3. Arshak Zardaryan

Service investigations regarding the death (health issues) of soldiers Edik Shahnazaryan and Arshak Zardaryan are completed and unit commanders were reprimanded.  Based on the investigation results of Mher Khlghatyan’s and Edik Shahnazaryan’s cases, the doctors were dismissed from their posts.

4 fatalities were the result of a safety rules violation:

1. Arman Ghukasyan
2. Nerses Karapetyan
3. Harutyun Safaryan
4. Armen Hayrapetyan

5 fatalities were fatal incidents.

1. Esayi Esayan
2. Hovhannes Hovhannisyan
3. Merujan Harutyunyan
4. Arevik Babasyan
5. Pavlik Manukyan

According to preliminary information, Subaltern Yesayi Esayan and contractual soldier Hovhannes Hovhannisyan were not on duty, they died as a result of a car accident.

For the period from January-June of 2014, 5 murder cases were reported.

1. Grisha Khachatryan
2. Derenik Manukyan
3. Gevorg Avagyan
4. Vladimir Hayrapetyan
5. Gor Grigoryan

One suicide case was recorded.

1. Samvel Harutyunayn

The Ministry of Defense, the ministry of Education and Science, and the “Yerkrapah” Volunteer Union signed a trilateral memorandum. Based on this memorandum, patriotic clubs will be formed in secondary educational institutions in Armenia.

We discussed this topic with Edgar Khachatryan, the director of Peace Dialogue NGO in Vanadzor.

According to the information that Edgar Khachatryan posses, similar clubs already exist in Russian Federation, several Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, as well as at several schools in a number of states in the U.S.A.

“Recently in Russia similar clubs are created attached to the churches. Sadly, many young people visiting these institutions later join the nationalist groups. The later have become a real scourge for Russia. Unfortunately, neither in the MoD press release nor in the media articles it is mentioned whether the membership of schoolchildren in these clubs will be on a volunteer basis or mandatory. However, as far as I know, in other countries the membership in these clubs is exclusively on a volunteer basis.” – mentioned Mr. Khachatryan.He also added that in the modern world such integration of army with civil structures is called “Militarization”. The term militarization illustrates the ideology that supports militarism in the country and creates public demand towards it.

“In fact, this is an ideology that mobilizes and prepares society to organize itself to withstand war situations- real or fake- or possible cases of violence. In a larger sense, within it lies the desire of the authorities or society to have a country with strong military abilities, ready to use them aggressively for the sake of national interest.

In many cases, this ideology contains the heroization and idealization of the military class and the dominance and decisive role of armed forces in public administration and policy-making processes.” – added E. Khachatryan.

According to him, if we carefully study the cases of Russia and North Korea, it is hard not to notice that in these societies the rulers and their supporters are put above the law. E. Khachatryan thinks that in such societies, the absence of democratic counterbalance that must restrain the militaristic processes brings up a special caste of people that stand above the law. As a result, the law loses its authority and power, and consequently, in these societies it stops being a tool for protecting the rights of an individual.

The director of Peace Dialogue NGO thinks that the most troubling problem about militarization is that in such societies people are seen as soldiers not citizens: soldiers, who are obliged to execute the instructions of the commanders without doubting their veracity and appropriateness.

“Especially at a school the functioning of such clubs seems contradictory to say the least, because the school is an institution that according to me is first of all meant to develop critical thinking, strive for freedom, creative and analytical skills. Have you have heard that a militarized institution would promote initiative taking or dissidence, creative self-expression or a wish to be different from the others. In fact, the militaristic system does not intend to receive criticism or intolerance from the subordinates towards the actions of the superior. Otherwise, the subordinate who does not follow the order, is punished by a relevant regulation. In my opinion, the initiative is aimed at bringing up future soldiers, not future citizens.”

Edgar Khachatryan also expressed an opinion, that if these clubs open, perhaps young people will receive certain training and later on when they join the army they will be more conscious about their responsibilities, which consequently may reduce the number of discipline-related issues in the armed forces. However, first of all it is necessary to understand what kind of value system this initiative aims to develop among young people.

“Is the army really an environment where human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully protected and in case they are violated, is there any mechanism that will help the citizens to restore their rights? Therefore, what is the reason that this environment is chosen for bringing up children?” – mentioned the director of Peace Dialogue NGO.

“Certainly, I appreciate very much patriotism and respect for our Motherland, however, I believe this feeling is natural. You do not teach a child how to love his parents; he does that based on his own feelings. All people, regardless of their sexual, religious, racial identity, or participation in any special training, have this feeling towards their parents. In this case, why should someone teach the children how to love their land? Was it due to some military-patriotic clubs that Hovhannes Tumanyan, Aram Khachaturyan, and Paruyr Sevak were filled with love towards their mother tongue and their native land?”

“In Armenia, a country where the democratic institutions are not developed enough, to put it mildly, the risk of devaluation of law is very big. Thus, in case of our country, I think it would have been better to create democracy clubs at secondary schools instead of military-patriotic clubs.” – concluded Edgar Khachatryan.

Author: Lusine Avagyan
Source: www.asparez.am