Armenia: Move to Abolish Controversial Legislation

By Gayane Mkrtchian in Yerevan (CRS No. 425 03-Jan-08)

Critics say article in country’s criminal code could be used to detain anti-government protestors.

With presidential elections in Armenia less than two months away, the opposition is seeking the abolition of a controversial article in the criminal code that it says can be employed by the authorities to stifle protest.

According to Article 301 of the Armenian criminal code, publicly calling for a violent seizure of power or the overthrow of the constitutional system is punishable by a fine equivalent to 300-500 times the minimum salary in Armenia (about 25-40,000 US dollars), detention for two to three months or imprisonment for up to three years.

Zaruhi Postanjian, an opposition member of parliament with the Heritage Party, is seeking to have the article removed from the criminal code by means of a special draft bill being put before parliament.

“Where is the line drawn?” asked Postanjian. “When does a person’s statement or public appearance constitute a punishable act?”

“It violates and restricts citizens’ right to free expression and is an instrument in the hands of the authorities, being used to silence opposition figures,” she said.

Postanjian says Article 301 violates rights guaranteed under Article 27 of the Armenian constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“Prosecuting a person under Article 301 is a gross violation of his or her right to free expression,” she said. “Article 3 of the Armenian constitution says, ‘The state ensures that citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms are protected in line with principles and norms of the international law.’”

However, government supporters respond that citizens’ rights are protected by the constitution and that the article defends the state against the possibility of violent opposition.

Aram Safarian of the pro-government Prosperous Armenia faction in parliament says scrapping the article would “pitch the country into anarchy”.

“We do not live in a country where the authorities demonstrate an inclination towards violence,” agreed Armen Ashotian, a deputy with the governing Republican Party.

“Even if the bill is passed [to abolish the article], the president won’t be able to sign it, because it is unconstitutional.”

Ashotian cited Article 43 of the constitution, which says that basic rights and freedoms can be restricted in the interests of state security and maintaining public order.

To the disappointment of its supporters, the bill is unlikely to be debated in parliament before March, meaning the article will still be in force in the run-up to the presidential elections due on February 19.

The article has been employed on several occasions in the last few years, on each occasion when the political temperature has been high in Armenia.

In the spring of 2004, police arrested a number of opposition activists at protest rallies in Yerevan, citing Article 301.

The previous year, several people in the town of Armavir were arrested on the same charge. Among them was Azat Gasparian, 45, a lawyer, who played an active role in the rallies protesting against the presidential election of 2003.

He and four friends were found guilty under Article 301 and sentenced to two months in the harsh Nubarashen prison after attempting to ferry busloads of people from Armavir to Yerevan to take part in a rally.

While Gasparian is still a prominent opposition activist, every time a rally is due to take place he is summoned to a police station and warned that he may be “disturbing public order”.

“They warn me that I should not go too far and threaten to stitch up a case against me up if I do,” he said.

Independent parliamentarian Viktor Dallakian also fell victim to Article 301 when he addressed a public rally in March 2004, at which he said that the Armenian people had the power to get rid of the governing authorities.

“I did not call for a violent overthrow of the constitutional regime,” said Dallakian. “I was released only after the visit of Vladimir Pryakhin, head of the OSCE office in Armenia, to the prosecutor’s office.”

Another opposition parliamentarian, chairman of the National-Democratic Party Shavarsh Kocharian, also said he had been charged under Article 301. After the presidential election in 1996, he was accused of attempting to organize a coup d’etat and faced the same charge following the April 12, 2004 events.

In 2006, charges were laid against Zhirair Sefilian, a veteran of the Nagorny Karabakh war and founder of the movement Armenian Volunteers Association, and against fellow veteran Vardan Malkhasian.

Sefilian had said at a meeting of the association, in reference to the seven Azerbaijani territories around Nagorny Karabakh, now under the control of the Armenian side, “We will break the heads of those who try to surrender the liberated territories.”

Lawyer Vahe Grigorian, who acts for Sefilian, said in his defence, “However harsh, the statement cannot be interpreted as a call for a violent seizure of power. However, this did not stop them from charging them under Article 301. They are political prisoners, who are being prosecuted for their opinions and activities, rather than for a criminal offence.”

The two men are still in prison.

Postanjian says she is trying to enlist the help of international organisations to get Article 301 abolished, and has also secured the help of Armenian human rights ombudsman as mediator.

“The human rights defender has applied to the Venice Commission [of the Council of Europe], asking for its opinion on the article in the shortest time possible,” said Postanjian.

Dallakian says there are two ways to solve the issue - either to abolish the article altogether or reword it to make it less ambiguous.

“It should be more clearly written what is meant by ‘calls’ [to overthrow the authorities],” he said. “Is it when people say “let’s take up arms and give them hell”, or when they just talk about ‘armed struggle’? There must be absolute clarity, otherwise you may be accused of attempting to overthrow the constitutional regime with one loud sneeze.”

Gayane Mkrtchian is a correspondent with ArmeniaNow.com in Yerevan

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

US DEPARTMENT OF STATE CONSIDERS KARABAKH “OCCUPIED”

18 September, 2007
A1+

“The Armenian (Apostolic) Church, which has formal legal status as the national church, enjoys some privileges not available to other religious groups”, says the US Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report. According to the report, “the law places some restrictions on the religious freedom of adherents of minority religious groups, and there were some restrictions in practice. In general, societal attitudes toward some minority religious groups were ambivalent, and there were reports of societal discrimination directed against members of these groups.

During the reporting period, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists reported that low-level government officials denied them the use of public space for religious gatherings. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses noted that, in general, they were free to assemble without harassment by police or other government entities. Jehovah's Witnesses reported that judges sentenced them to longer prison terms for evasion of alternative military service than in the past, although the sentences were still within the range allowed by law”.

The report says that “a customs issue pertaining to the Jehovah's Witnesses ability to obtain shipments of religious literature was not resolved at the end of the reporting period On March 29, 2007, customs officials in Yerevan reevaluated a shipment of religious periodicals received by the Jehovah's Witnesses at a significantly higher rate than the group expected, making it financially difficult for them to arrange clearance of the shipment. Customs officials maintained that the reevaluation complied with the customs code”.

By the way at the end the report says: “The U.S. Government discusses religious freedom issues with the Government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights. During these discussions, the U.S. Government emphasized to authorities that continued eligibility for the $235 million (approximately 79 billion AMD) Millennium Challenge Compact remained contingent upon the Government's performance in meeting good governance indicators, which include standards of respect for religious freedom”.

ABOUT KARABAKH IN THE UNIT ON AZERBAIJAN

The US State Department reflects on Karabakh in the unit referring to Azerbaijan. Here it was mentioned that the Armenian Apoistolic Church has a special status in Nagorno-Karabakh.

“In 1990s during the war with Armenia all ethnic Azerbaijanis have fled, mainly Muslims, from Nagorno-Karabakh and occupied 7 territories and are unable to return”, says the report . The US Department of State uses “occupied” noting that “the occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh--a predominantly ethnic Armenian area over which the Government of Azerbaijan had no control--officials reportedly released jailed Baptist conscientious objector Gagik Mirzoyan and transferred him to a military unit to complete the remainder of his military service. Also in the occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh, Jehovah's Witness and conscientious objector Areg Hovhanesyan remained in jail after being sentenced in 2005 to 4 years in prison for evading military service, a sentence he did not appeal”.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenian ‘Coup Plotters’ Go On Trial

Jul 2, 2007
Armenialiberty.org, Armenia
By Ruzanna Stepanian

Two prominent veterans of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh and one of their former comrades-in-arms went on a high-profile trial on Monday, accused of plotting to overthrow Armenia’s government.

Zhirayr Sefilian and Vartan Malkhasian appeared before a court in Yerevan seven months after being arrested on what they and their supporters call trumped-up and politically motivated charges. Sefilian is a Lebanese citizen of Armenian descent who leads a naitonalist pressure group opposed to Armenian concessions to Azerbaijan, while Malkhasian is a leader of a small opposition party.

The two men were arrested by officers of the National Security Service (NSS) in December just days after presiding over the founding conference of a new organization opposed to the return of any of the occupied Azerbaijani territories surrounding Karabakh. Regime change in Yerevan is another declared aim of their Union of Armenian Alliance (HKH).

The case against Sefilian and Malkhasian is essentially based on statements made by them during the HKH gathering held behind the closed doors. They appeared to justify violent actions as a legitimate method of struggle against the administration of President Robert Kocharian. Publicly calling for a “violent overthrow of the government” is a crime in Armenia.

The third defendant, Vahan Aroyan, was arrested later in December after NSS investigators claimed to have found a massive arms cache in his village in southern Armenia. The former soldier has since been kept under arrest despite reportedly refusing to implicate Sefilian in the alleged illegal arms possession.

The courtroom, packed with supporters of the three men, burst into rapturous applause and chants of “Freedom! Freedom!” as Sefilian, Malkhasian and Aroyan took their seats in the dock surrounded by armed guards. Aroyan wore wartime military uniform.

Several dozen protesters also gathered outside the court of first instance of Yerevan’s Kentron and Nor-Marash. Organizers of the protest claimed that the authorities want to imprison the three nationalist activists due to a presidential election due early next year. “They want to prevent consolidation of Armenian volunteers during the pre-election period, which could in turn consolidate the opposition and seriously threaten the authorities,” said Armen Aghayan, another HKH leader.

The first hearing at districts adjourned until July 6 shortly after its start, with the defense lawyers demanding the replacement of the presiding judge, Mnatsakan Martirosian. They said Martirosian can not be impartial because he has repeatedly and unjustly refused to release the suspects on bail.

Just as the trial of the alleged coup plotters got underway, another Kentron court judge allowed the NSS to keep Aleksandr Arzumanian, a well-known opposition politician charged with being illegally financed from abroad, under pre-trial arrest for two more months.

Following a short hearing held behind the closed doors, the court ruled that Arzumanian should remain in detention on the grounds that he will obstruct justice if set free now. It also cited continuing “investigative actvities” conducted by Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) as part of the politically charged criminal case. It also ignored a written statement by 19 Armenian parliamentarians who guaranteed that Arzumanian would not flee the country.

Arzumanian’s lawyer, Hovik Arsenian, rejected the verdict as “unfounded” and pledged to appeal it. He stood by his claims that the Armenian successor to the Soviet KGB lacks any evidence to jail his client and is artificially dragging out his release.

There have been no known cases of Armenian courts rejecting arrest petitions filed by the ex-KGB.

Arzumanian was arrested on May 7 on charges of illegally receiving a large amount of money from Levon Markos, a fugitive Russian businessman of Armenian descent. His arrest came two days after NSS officers searched his Yerevan apartment and confiscated $55,400 worth of cash kept there. Arzumanian, who had served as foreign minister from 1996-1998, denies the accusations as politically motivated.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

RFE/RL in the Balance: Parliament approves controversial media amendments

By Marianna Grigoryan and Suren Musayelyan
ArmeniaNow reporters

The National Assembly today approved in first reading amendments that may seriously restrict the work of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Armenia. A pro forma second reading will follow, but is not likely to change today’s decision.

An amendment proposed in the 2000 law “On Television and Radio” bans the Public Television and Radio Company (PTRC), which has so far retransmitted the U.S. Congress-funded radio station’s programs with the consent of its board, to provide its frequencies for airing programs of other broadcasters.

In substantiating the need for the amendment, its authors have said that the status and objectives of the PTRC, a state establishment with a mission to serve exclusively public interests, are “incompatible with the right to give consent to other broadcasting organizations’ carrying out activities on the frequencies allocated to it.” It is also argued that the use of PTRC frequencies by other broadcasters violates the principle of competition and that “it is practically impossible to set clear criteria for the Board’s giving or withholding consent regarding the use of the PTRC’s frequencies”, and which may result in “arbitrary decision making”.

By another amendment that cites “equal competition” concerns the parliament is set to introduce changes in the country’s law “On state duties” according to which for every broadcast foreign mass media’s national services will have to pay 70 times the size of the basic duty (i.e. 70,000 drams, or approx. $205 per program – in RFE/RL’s case the duty would amount to about $300,000 per year.)

RFE/RL is, in fact, the only broadcaster to which the amendments apply. The legislative changes may result in a serious curtailment of the RFE/RL Armenian Service’s broadcasts in Armenia and even eventually lead to its closure.

The Prague-headquartered radio station’s Armenian service primarily relies on the Armenian Public Radio’s frequencies to air its daily news programs across the country (morning, afternoon and evening news programs).

“An attempt is being made to challenge freedom, free speech, Radio Liberty. The American Radio Liberty is broadcasting in countries where there are problems with democracy, including in Armenia, and its closure will cause political problems,” Victor Dallakyan, an MP not affiliated with any party, charged in parliament.

Despite assurances by pro-establishment forces that the amendments are not aimed against the Prague-headquartered radio station or at restricting press freedom in Armenia, it has been condemned by the parliamentary minority, including Raffi Hovannisian’s Heritage party and the Orinats Yerkir party.

“Radio Liberty was closed also in Uzbekistan after well-known events. There has been pressure from the presidential palace on that occasion, because during the New Year time Robert Kocharyan expressed his dissatisfaction with the work of Radio Liberty,” Heritage faction member Stepan Safaryan said.

The opposition in parliament was joined by media and rights groups as well as opposition parties outside parliament, which also criticized the move.

“It cannot last for long. We have only Liberty, and they want to muzzle it too,” says a statement released by “Asparez” club of journalists NGO today. “This initiative is aimed against the broadcast of Radio Liberty and is another episode in the consistent state policy of pressuring media freedom and freedom of expression.”

Parliament Speaker Tigran Torosyan, however, has downplayed the opposition concerns.

“These statements are no more than a provocation,” the top legislator from the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) said. “The bill under discussion is in no way connected with Radio Liberty. Liberty is not a broadcasting company, as it has no corresponding license, and therefore this document is not connected with it.”

Another senior member of the party shares the opinion of the speaker.

“It is naive to think that the radio is so powerful that it can form public opinion. The role of radio is gradually declining,” RPA member Armen Ashotyan said during Thursday’s meeting in parliament. “The government has no goal of closing Radio Liberty. If it had, it would have done so in the Board of the Public Radio and Television Company, without so much transparency.”

Joining the outcry by opposition politicians and civil rights and media freedom groups in Armenia, an OSCE media freedom representative called on Armenian lawmakers on Thursday not to adopt the amendments, saying they were incompatible with OSCE commitments to media freedoms.

Miklos Haraszti said that as RFE/RL is currently the only foreign media outlet using the PTRC frequency, the adoption of the amendments “would amount to a ban on their programs in Armenia.”

In neighboring Azerbaijan, the national independent TV and radio channel, ANS, was barred from airing foreign broadcasts from the beginning of this year after authorities said it lacked the proper licenses.

ANS, previously an RFE/RL affiliate on FM, had also aired programs of the BBC and Voice of America.

RFE/RL, which had for decades served as one of the few sources of uncensored information for the peoples of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites, was enabled to legally operate inside the former Communist bloc and reach retransmission agreements with local broadcasters after the downfall of communist regimes.

RFE/RL’s Armenian service was able to openly operate in Armenia and lease state radio frequencies until being controversially forced off the air in late 1994 by then President Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Robert Kocharyan resumed the retransmission of RFE/RL programs by state radio shortly after he was elected president in 1998.

But in recent years, he has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with RFE/RL’s coverage of political events in Armenia.

According to a recent Gallup survey, RFE/RL is one of the most popular media outlets in Armenia. But its critical coverage of political events, in particular elections, is seen as a threat to the current administration and in particular to Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan, a likely successor of Kocharyan as president in next year’s elections.

Suren Surenyants, a senior member of the radical opposition Hanrapetutyun party, says that while before the last presidential election in 2003 they employed the National Television and Radio Commission to force A1 Plus out of the air, now the institution of parliament and parliamentarianism is being discredited.

“For me it is not only a political, but also a moral issue. When I and my numerous friends were for two months in the jail of the National Security Service, besides being a media outlet, Radio Liberty was for me and my friends the only hope for freedom and salvation and the only link with the outside world,” Surenyants told ArmeniaNow.

“It is wrong when they say there is no censorship today, because the fear that was instilled in us it is the same terrible censorship that keeps all media aloof from what is really happening,” A1 Plus TV Company director Mesrop Movsesyan told Aravot daily. “I think it is not the end yet, and it will have a more serious continuation in the direction of pressuring the press and free speech, because mass media will play a very important role during the presidential elections. We and the authorities understand this.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

HRW Urges Armenia Not To Pass Media Bill

June 30, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Human Rights Watch (HRW) is urging the Armenian parliament not to pass a bill that would impose severe restrictions on foreign broadcasters in the country, particularly RFE/RL.

The U.S.-based human rights group said in a statement that the bill would "clearly restrict access to a crucial independent news source" and deal a blow to "RFE/RL and to freedom of the media in general."

RFE/RL President Jeffrey Gedmin said in a statement that passage of the bill would "set a dangerous precedent for public media in all of the countries of the former Soviet Union."

Gedmin expressed the hope that "Armenia's parliamentarians will reconsider their support for this flawed bill."

The proposal would block access to certain frequencies and heavily fine the domestic retransmission of foreign-made broadcast programs.

It would also impose a tax of 70,000 Armenian drams, or more than $200, per program per day for every time a private station rebroadcast a foreign-produced program.

The bill has drawn sharp criticism from the OSCE, media rights groups, and Armenian opposition leaders.

The parliament in Yerevan on June 29 passed the bill but must confirm that vote in a second reading expected on July 2.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIA PLACED 142ND AMONG 195 COUNTRIES IN PRESS FREEDOM RANKING

May 4, 2007
ARKA

YEREVAN, Freedom House, human rights organization, included Armenia in the list of the countries with restricted freedom of press.

Washington ProFile reports that Armenia is placed 142nd among 195 countries in Freedom House's ranking.

Freedom House points out precipitous deterioration of the situation with media freedom in Latin America countries and former Soviet republics.

The United States shared 17th place with Estonia. Lithuania was placed 29th and Latvia 31st.

Ukraine was 112th and Georgia 120th - both were considered partially free. The remaining post-soviet countries have not free press.

Armenia found itself together with Moldova (144th), Kyrgyzstan (147), Azerbaijan and Russia (164), Kazakhstan and Tajikistan (166), Belarus (186), Uzbekistan (189) and Turkmenistan (191).

Turkmenistan's freedom has outdone only that of South Korea.

Myanmar, Cuba and Libya are topping Freedom House's black books.

Press freedom leaders are Finland and Iceland. They are followed by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Andorra, Netherlands, New Zealand and Lichtenstein.

German was 16th, Great Britain 31st, France 39th, Poland 46th, Israel 61st, Turkey 105th and Saudi Arabia 178th. China and Iran share 181st rank.

74 countries' media was recognized fully free, 58 states' media partially free and 63 not free.

It means 18% people in the world live in countries with restricted freedom of press, 39% in the countries with partially free media and 43 with restricted. M.V.-0---

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Gina out of Armenia, as questions loom

16 April 2007
Malta Star
By David Vella

Gina Khachatryan, the asylum seeker who was deported from England to Armenia via Malta last week, has managed to once again leave her homeland and is now “in a place of safety”, according to her friends in the UK.

But while human rights groups are relieved that she is not in danger of persecution, journalists in Armenia are casting doubts on whether or not Gina’s story of her hardships before leaving the country are actually true.

Khachatryan made headlines in numerous British and Maltese newspapers, including this e-newspaper, when she appealed for help to prevent her deportation, since this would have put her, her husband, and their five year old daughter at risk of political persecution. The family had been living in the UK as asylum seekers since 2003. But the British Home Office never granted them refugee status, and last week the family was taken to a detention centre to be deported.

But human rights groups in the UK, along with a number of journalists and journalist associations, started rallying against the deportation. Gina had fled her country after exposing a case of electoral fraud in 2003. She even spent 40 days in prison before managing to escape Armenia, or so she claimed.

maltastar.com had talked to Gina herself, hours before she boarded an Air Malta plane from London to Malta last Friday. She had explained that she is afraid of going back to her country “because they will arrest us immediately”.

Unable to track down Gina’s story

But during the weekend, at least two journalists working in Armenia, confirmed that they did not manage to find any details on Gina’s experience back in 2003. On a blog hosted on the website of ‘The Guardian’ newspaper, where Gina’s case was first mentioned, Roy Greenslade wrote that a friend of his in Armenia “was unable to find anyone at the Yerevan press club or the Investigative Journalists of Armenia who knew of her or the incident she described. Furthermore, [he] asked people in the newsroom of Armenia's public TV company, where Gina claims to have worked, and no-one there remembered her”.

At the same time, in response to these doubts, the editor of an Armenian newspaper wrote “we, too, have tried to validate Ms Khachatryan's claims, but so far found them unsubstantiated”.

But, as Greenslade wrote in his blog, this does not necessarily mean that her story was not true. “None of this is, of course, conclusive proof that Gina has lied, but Armenian journalists - and journalists everywhere - will be unhappy if she has pretended to be a journalist in order to stay illegally in Britain... The truth is that there was so little time to act after hearing about Gina's detention that none of us had time to check her story. On the other hand, we still don't know the truth. The whole thing remains a mystery”.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Mystery of the deported Armenian 'journalist'

Monday April 16 2007
Greenslade
By Roy Greenslade

Strenuous efforts on Thursday and on Friday to prevent the deportation of Gina/Jina Khachatryan eventually failed. She was flown out of Heathrow to Valletta, where Maltese journalists also did their best to help her. But she was eventually taken to Moscow and then on to Yerevan, Armenia.

I understand that she is now in what is regarded as a place of safety, along with her five-year-old daughter, Elen. A single British friend is in touch with her, and she says that Gina is "extremely grateful" for the support shown by so many people.

It certainly was heartening to witness the sudden explosion of interest after I was informed that Gina - described as "an Armenian journalist" - was about to be returned to a country she fled four years ago after apparently falling foul of the authorities for revealing electoral fraud. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention that there have been questions raised about Gina's story.

For example, an Armenian blogger, uzogh, decided to check details in Gina's statements and couldn't find anyone in Yerevan to corroborate her story. She has claimed to have been detained for 40 days after exposing electoral fraud while working as a media assistant to an opposition candidate, Suren Abrahamian, in the Erebuni constituency in Yerevan, during the May 2003 parliamentary elections. She also said she had previously worked as a TV journalist - for H1, Channel 2 and Mairakakhok TV - and as a newspaper journalist, for the titles Aravot and Yerkerot Alik.

Yet uzogh's investigation drew a blank. He tells me that he was unable to find anyone at the Yerevan press club or the Investigative Journalists of Armenia who knew of her or the incident she described. Furthermore, uzogh - whose real identity I know - asked people in the newsroom of Armenia's public TV company, where Gina claims to have worked, and no-one there remembered her.

None of this is, of course, conclusive proof that Gina has lied, but Armenian journalists - and journalists everywhere - will be unhappy if she has pretended to be a journalist in order to stay illegally in Britain. As one of her closest friends in Britain now concedes, "most of what Gina has told people here appears to be a bending of the truth at best and pure fabrication at worst."

None of this was clear to any of the people who did so much last week to help Gina, including Mike Jempson, the director of MediaWise, and Toby Young, who generously agreed to pay her legal fees. Similarly, Maltese journalists made a huge effort to help Gina in the belief that she was a journalist facing recriminations if returned to Armenia.

The truth is that that was so little time to act after hearing about Gina's detention that none of us had time to check her story. On the other hand, we still don't know the truth. The whole thing remains a mystery and shouldn't blind us to the problems facing all the people who seek exile in Britain.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Deported Armenian journalist lands in Malta

13 April 2007
Malta Star
By Kurt Farrugia & david vella

The Armenian journalist who lived in England for five years as an asylum seeker, was deported on Friday morning, and landed in Malta with her family, where she will remain held at the airport until she boards a plane to Armenia via Russia, early on Saturday morning.

Gina Khachatryan, 30, arrived in Malta on Thursday at 1505hrs on Air Malta flight KM101, accompanied by four Maltese plain clothes police officers. Gina had fled her homeland in September 2003, when her family started facing threats and persecution for reporting a case of corruption in the country’s elections. “ On September 11, 2003, Gina, her husband Vahan Boyakhchyan, and their baby daughter Elen, landed in Malta, where they spent 10 days before flying to the UK to seek asylum as political refugees.

But the British authorities never accepted the family’s asylum application. In June 2006, Gina’s request was turned down by the UK’s High Court, and a “removal order” was issued, sources close to the British Home Office told maltastar.com on Friday. The original date for the deportation was February 2007, but it was delayed to Friday 13 April.

Last Monday, police closed off the street where Gina lived in Salford, and ordered her family to pack up in 30 minutes. She was then taken to Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Bedford until she was taken to Heathrow airport during the night between Thursday and Friday.

Maltese police to escort Gina to Russia

As she arrived in Malta, maltastar.com contacted Gina, who explained that the Maltese police officers during the flight were very kind to her family. “I don’t know exactly where they’re keeping us, but now they’re taking us to eat”, Gina said during a brief telephone conversation. The Maltese authorities will accompany the Armenian family to Moscow on an Air Malta flight that leaves Malta at 0200hrs Saturday morning.

maltastar.com is informed that in the afternoon, a Maltese lawyer, whose name is yet undisclosed, offered to help Gina and her family. “The only way that Gina can avoid going back to her country is to send an urgent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. If Gina accepts to nominate a lawyer to send such a request, the chances are that her family will be stopping in Malta, at least until the European Courts issue a definitive decision” sources told maltastar.com. Another option is that Gina and her family apply for asylum in Malta. Yet, the Office of the Commissioner of Refugees did not receive any application from the family by late on Friday afternoon. Late on Friday evening, this e-newspaper was informed that Gina decided to proceed on her way to Armenia.

During the last 48 hours, a number of human rights groups in the UK, and journalists’ associations in the UK and Malta, as well as a number of Gina’s friends, were trying to find a way of stopping the deportation. Professor Mike Jempsen, Director of the MediaWise Trust, said that Gina is worried about what might happen if she is returned to Armenia, where election campaigning has started again. “I don’t know what might happen. I may not be killed, but I will end up in prison definitely because I told another country about what is happening in Armenia. I am afraid because they will be waiting for me at the airport. The questioning will start right away. Why did I run away? Why did I claim political asylum? I am scared for my child” Gina told the organisation before she left the UK detention centre.

Maltese minister asked to intervene

maltastar.com journalists have been in constant contact with representatives of British human rights groups, in order to try and find ways to help the Armenian journalist. The Malta Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was also working on the case throughout the day. maltastar.com, which started following Gina’s case on Thursday, also kept international journalists’ association Reporters Without Borders (RSF) posted.

In Malta, Karl Schembri, President of the Journalists’ Committee, wrote to the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Prime Minister, asking them to ensure that Gina’s family will not be persecuted once she returns to Armenia. The Journalists’ Committee also informed the International Federation of Journalists, and the Maltese Commissioner for Refugees.

“From our perspective, Ms. Khachatryan was given adequate opportunity to present her asylum claims in a fair and effective manner in the United Kingdom, including a reconsideration and high court review of her case” said Dr Neil Falzon, Head of Office of the UNHCR Malta told maltastar.com, “In all instances, Ms. Khachatryan's asylum claims were rejected and UNHCR has no reason to doubt these conclusions. Whilst this means UNHCR will not get involved in her case, it does not preclude her from attempting to access other legal channels”.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Deportation drama: Malta journalists offer help

Friday April 13 2007
Greenslade
By Roy Greenslade

11.40am: The Armenian journalist, Gina Khachatryan, is on the Air Malta plane bound for Valletta at the beginning of her unwanted journey back to Armenia. (See Protests over Armenian journalist's deportation) The home office rejected pleas from friends, supporters, lawyers, individual journalists and the National Union of Journalists in order to carry out her controversial deportation.

But Maltese journalists, led by David Vella of the Malta Star, have rallied to Gina's cause. Herman Grech of The Times of Malta is also on the case.

They contacted the United Nations human rights commission in the hope that one of its representatives would be allowed to speak to Gina when she arrives at the airport in Malta in order to assist her to make a formal request to the Maltese government for political asylum. But the UNHCR have pointed out that such a request would be extremely unlikely to succeed. The only hope now is a legal decision by the European court.

If that move fails, then the family will be flown on to Moscow. Gina will hope that the Russian authorities might be prepared to accept her (although she does not have Russian citizenship she was born in the country). She believes that anything is better than returning to the country where she anticipates bitter hostility from officials after fleeing in 2003.

Some people have asked me why a journalist should be afraid of operating in Armenia, which was named as the 101st worst country (out of 168) for press freedom restrictions in the Reporters without Borders 2006 rankings. And it may well slip further down that list because Edik Baghdasaryan, head of the association of investigative journalists of Armenia, has reported a recent wave of violent attacks against journalists in the country.

If officials - or large-scale businessmen - do not like what is written, reporters are threatened and, in some cases, beaten up. One reporter was forced to leave his flat last summer.

More on this continuing drama later.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenian family is sent 'home'

13/4/2007
Manchester Evening news
By Yakub Qureshi

AN Armenian TV reporter who fled to Britain after raising the alarm over alleged election fraud is being deported.

Gina Khatchatryan, who has been living with her family in Bury for three years, says her life will be in danger if sent back after blowing the whistle on ballot-rigging.

She, her husband and five-year-old daughter were due to be thrown out today after their asylum appeal was rejected.

But she says she will have to go into hiding on her return having previously received death threats.

The 30-year-old journalist worked for the country's public TV station Armenia 1, but had also supported the campaign of a political candidate in local elections four years ago. While an observer at a polling station, she and others spotted ballot boxes being interfered with and alerted police.

Soon afterwards, she started receiving threats to drop the complaint and decided to go into hiding.

But when thugs visited her and threatened daughter Elena, she was forced to flee the country.

The family had been living in Bury while their application was processed. Elena has been a pupil at Heap Bridge primary school and English is her first language. Immigration officials accepted the facts of the journalist's claim, but believe she had overstated the danger and rejected her argument.

The family were moved from their home in the early hours of Easter Monday and taken to Yarls Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire. They were due to be deported today from Heathrow Airport.

Home Office officials said an initial assessment by immigration services and subsequent appeal hearings had deemed that the family did not face sufficient risk.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Exiled Armenian journalist faces deportation

Thursday April 12 2007
Greenslade
By Roy Greenslade

An Armenian journalist living in exile in Britain has been taken from her Salford home by immigration officers and informed that she will be deported tomorrow. MediaWise, the media ethics charity, say that Gina Khachatryan was taken to the Yarlswood detention centre on Monday with her husband, Vahan, and their five-year-old daughter, Elen.

It appears that the home office are on the verge of making a terrible mistake here. Ms Khachatryan, a broadcast journalist was imprisoned in Armenia after witnessing and speaking out about electoral fraud. The family fled to Britain after she was released from jail in September 2003. She has been studying child care at Bury College. Elen, who speaks only English, is settled and happy at a Rochdale school.

It is believed that Ms Khachatryan could be in danger if she is returned to Armenia. The present plan involves her flying first to Malta, then to Moscow and on to Yerevan, the Armenian capital. She is so scared of returning to her home country that she would prefer to stay in Russia.

If journalists want more information, it may be able to reach Ms Khachatryan at the detention centre (Tel: 01234-821000). She is in room 250. Another key contact is Sue Arnall, of the Castaways organisation, based in Bury (Tel: 0161-764-9205).

I understand that the Manchester Evening News are about to run a story sympathetic to her plight. But time is running out...


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

CIS: Media Situation Worsening In Central Asia, Russia, Azerbaijan

February 1, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says that 2006 was the deadliest year for journalists in more than decade. The death toll was the highest since 1994, a year of conflicts in Rwanda, Algeria, and the former Yugoslavia. In its "Freedom Of The Press Worldwide In 2007" report released today the Paris-based group says 81 media staffers died in the course of their work last year -- 65 of them in Iraq.

RFE/RL correspondent Eugen Tomiuc talked to Elsa Vidal, from RSF's European and post-Soviet countries desk about the situation in Central Asia, Russia, Belarus, and the South Caucasus.

RFE/RL: Your report says the situation has not improved in 2006 in Central Asia. It cites Uzbekistan for maintaining pressure on independent local and foreign media, and says the Kazakh government has stepped up legal harassment of opposition media. But it singles out Turkmenistan as having "the world's worst press freedom record along with North Korea." Could you outline the general situation of media freedom in Central Asia?

"Elza Vidal: Our most worrying topic in Central Asia is definitely Turkmenistan. Since [President Saparmurat] Niazov's death [in December 2006], we hope for a liberalization of the regime with the upcoming election [on February 19], but until now, there haven't been any concrete steps taken in that direction. We lost one journalist last year in Turkmenistan [RFE/RL correspondent Ogulsapar Muradova, who died in prison in September 2006], but we also have got no news from two other colleagues of Ogulsapar Muradova who were arrested and convicted in the same trial last August. As we have no news from them we are pretty worried and fearing that the worst has happened to them.

RFE/RL: How about Uzbekistan?

Vidal: In Uzbekistan we have seen the disappearance of almost all foreign media on Uzbek soil, and we know that most of the human rights defenders are forced to work clandestinely. Very recently, we have also learned about the arrest of an opposition journalist, a prominent journalist [Umida] Niyazova, and it's unfortunately not the first -- and we are quite convinced that it won't be the last, to be arrested under false reasons.

RFE/RL: Your report calls the situation in Russia "grim," and highlights the killing of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. It also says that in Belarus, more pressure was put on media outlets offering a voice to, or even mentioning the existence of, the political opposition. How much worse is the situation in these countries compared to previous years?

Vidal: What we have seen in Russia and Belarus is a tightening grip on the administrative and financial means of media control. Of course, there has also been a burst of violence in Russia against journalists -- three of them were murdered last year, including, of course, Anna Politkovskaya. But in Russia we are most worried about the spreading of violence in all society -- a trend that affects also the security of journalists. But [both] in Belarus and in Russia, we have seen last year an attempt to get firm control on the all the means of production and distribution of newspapers and of all the free press.

RFE/RL: In the Caucasus, your report singles out Azerbaijan, where it says that 2006 was a "dark year" for the media. Could you explain why?

Vidal: The main problems [in the Caucasus] are, from our point of view, in Azerbaijan. Although the country experiences a real economic boom, we know that in Azerbaijan this tremendous growth doesn't benefit the free press, and there has been a real temptation on the side of [President Ilham] Aliyev to silence the opposition and the press that is linked to this opposition. But what we want to underline in Azerbaijan is also that there is a growing use of abduction and aggression against journalists that are mainly investigating corruption cases.

RFE/RL: How about neighboring Armenia?

Vidal: Armenia is far less violent for journalists compared with Azerbaijan, and the problems that we have witnessed are much more linked to the difficulty for some journalists to raise geopolitical problems, so it is much more a problem of censorship. It is worrying, but compared with Azerbaijan, it is really not on the same level.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

It’s The Mass Media That Create Society

January 29, 2007
Hetq Online

Interview with cultural theorist Hrach Bayadyan

Is there freedom of speech in Armenia? And what role do the electronic media play in the realm of the mass media, Public Television in particular?

To some extent there is freedom of speech and to some extent there is not. In many respects the opposition press is freer, but the TV channels are thoroughly controlled… In each particular situation we can evaluate freedom of speech depending on what mass medium we are talking about... Indeed, the extent of freedom of speech may vary in some situations. If we compare Public Television and Public Radio from the standpoint of free expression we will find a clear difference between them – Public Radio is freer in articulating criticism. Especially since Public Radio broadcasts programs from Radio Liberty, which has no constraints and is not controlled by the government. The reason is clear – the extent of the impact made by radio is far smaller.

I remember that when they covered the demonstrations that followed the last presidential elections and the violence applied to the demonstrators, the as yet inexperienced reporters from Radiolur lied to such an extent that I, as a radio listener, felt uncomfortable. It was also ridiculous since their coverage was followed by Radio Liberty reports telling us exactly the opposite. Now they express themselves more freely at Radiolur, though limitations still exist. I do not rule out that in the case of a worsening of the political situation, government control will increase and freedom of speech will diminish.

Ever since A1+ TV was taken off the air the authorities have tried by all means to keep the electronic media - and Public Television, which has the largest audience, above all – under their control. Therefore, freedom of speech at Public TV is in a sorry plight. The Haylur news program is controlled with special punctiliousness and as a result it stands out for its deliberateness in commenting on the events. That deliberateness is manifested in the most diverse ways and is achieved by the most diverse means – from passing over certain things in silence and misrepresenting them to disinformation, from skilful editing to ridiculing. Sarcasm combined with obvious hints at various political and public figures and other tricks, for example, takes on certain interpretative, guiding and, eventually, evaluative significance for the audience.

Freedom of expression on the Public Television is also confined because of its saturation with inexcusable volumes of commercialized and light entertainment programs. Over the years this approach has shaped a “profile” or a picture that is called on to satisfy the demands of various segments of the society.

The only positive consequence of government's efforts to control the electronic mass media was the fact that in order to express themselves freely many mass media outlets have been established on the Internet. Of course, many electronic and print media have their Internet versions as well. Due to the lack of reliable statistical data we may assume that their social significance is negligible, and the main reason for this is limited access to the Internet. Perhaps paradoxically, journalists' lack of competence and awareness might be a factor limiting freedom of expression and getting reliable information. The simplisticness of journalists' language and evaluations may be reaching an extreme. A journal may have its “style” and stereotypes, and journalists might have “eyeglasses” that enable them to see some things and not to see others, in order to meet their deadlines.

Let's not forget, however, that the influence of the mass media depends not only on what and how they report, but also on how the audience perceives all that. In other words, one should not overestimate the perceiver's ingenuousness – that he or she allegedly perceives what is being reported. Nowadays, a great role is attached in media theories and studies to the factor of perception, to the forms of the consumption of information and cultural production. Depending on the audience's perception, education and social affiliation as well as other circumstances, numerous ambiguities might accrue. In this respect one should not overestimate the mass media's capability to shape people's thinking or opinions.

The mass media operate in a complex social context that can add question marks to their messages, introduce uncertainties, ambiguities and misconceptions.

What is the ratio between electronic and print, pro-government, opposition and independent media?

It's one thing when we talk about the pro-government press where the freedom of speech is limited by the authorities or by the factor of authority, and another thing when we talk about the opposition or independent mass media. Here too there are constraining factors. Being in opposition doesn't imply having free speech. Naturally, being outside the government's control renders additional opportunities for freedom, sometimes more, sometimes less. I'm confident that for a journalist of any media outlet that considers itself free or independent there also exist taboo-subjects, conditional to various factors – economic pressure, political sympathy or antipathy, etc… They might not be openly visible but if one wishes to one can discover a newspaper's sympathies and antipathies by, for example, reading the paper over a longer period of time. Sometimes the freedom might be a freedom of cursing out the government or someone else, but not freedom of speech.

If the government doesn't have control at least over the non-governmental segment of the print media, it is because the audience and the possible impact of print media are much smaller. This is the case everywhere; it's just that in Armenia it reaches extreme proportions. Even in developed countries the press with the greatest possible circulation cannot be compared with TV channels. As for the radio stations in Armenia, they are almost completely commercialized or are cultural in nature. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to discuss the issue of freedom of speech in this case. I have already touched upon the rise in the number of Internet media outlets. It is worth adding that they are published in foreign languages as well and have a larger audience abroad and thus present more diverse and reliable information not only to foreigners but also to the numerous Armenian Diaspora, which might have an impact on the internal political life.

What methods of pressure are presently exerted on journalists to limit freedom of speech?

In the case of electronic mass media, control is exerted vis-à-vis the subjects being covered, the guests who are invited etc… As far as print media is concerned - where media outlets of opposition political parties still exist - government control or pressure might be exercised in a variety of ways. Control can be exercised through bribing a journalist to prevent him or her from writing on a particular subject or conducting an interview with a particular person or to write a particular article on a required subject. Naturally, tougher methods exist – from intimidation to brute force. Various pressures can be exerted not only toward journalists but toward media outlets as well.

As in all segments of society, there are corruptible and opportunistic people among journalists as well. In its turn, the information domain is multi-layered: mass media owners, journalistic elite, “proletariat”, etc… One should not depict journalists as people crowned with a halo of free speech; neither one should forget that freedom of speech is a Western concept with certain forces and interests standing behind it. Its local significance is not always unequivocal, since it is shaped in a much larger domain than the national framework of government-society, government-opposition interrelationships.

The control over freedom of expression is exercised mostly by administrative and economic means. Disobedient radio and TV companies can be deprived of broadcasting frequencies. And the other way around—the National Commission on Television and Radio might compensate for loyalty by turning a blind eye to violations of the law by a given media outlet (for example, violations related to the volumes and content of ads).

Since the owners of TV companies usually have other businesses as well (the majority of private TV channels are apparently not profitable), these companies are controlled through controlling the owners' other businesses. In other words, there are many ways of controlling.

Some people think that, in essence, in our country mass media do not shape public opinion. If this is true then why do the authorities and the political forces react so painfully to the criticism sounded by the mass media?

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu wrote an article on the subject, the very title of which maintains: “Public Opinion Doesn't Exist.” One of his statements can be paraphrased like this: what we consider public opinion is something that a government or some other power forms and disseminates in order to justify its subsequent actions. In Armenia it's even more customary to talk and act on behalf of the people. In any case, it's clear from what has been said that what is called public opinion cannot exist without the mass media. It is evident that without the help of the mass media thousands of people that make up the society do not have a chance first to have an opinion about something that they have not witnessed, and then to have a unified opinion.

Moreover, society itself is inconceivable as such without mass media. Therefore, it is only with the help of mass media that we are able to have an opinion about something, which doesn't mean, as we have already said, that we would necessarily have the opinion that the media outlet would want us to have. In this sense, public opinion, of course, exists so far as the mass media try to shape certain assessments and expectations of certain realities, and in this respect the authorities have sufficient grounds for worry.

The other side of the question is that our society remains patriarchal, where the word of the head of the family or the state must be indisputable, where dissent or even worse, criticism is perceived as an encroachment upon his authority.

What is the connection between mass media and society?

As we have said, it is impossible to separate society and the mass media from each other. Society doesn't exist without mass media. Power and politics don't exist without mass media and vice versa. Just imagine a daily newspaper that doesn't report on a government meeting of the previous day, that doesn't cover the sessions of the National Assembly (let's put aside professional media). On the other hand the presentation and interpretation of political decisions, the behavior of state and political figures is also adapted to the perspectives that the mass media realm offers. The significance and future development of events might depend on how they are presented on television.

Even the most irreconcilable opposition newspaper, to some extent, contributes to the legitimization of the government by its criticism. Do you remember how the opposition newspapers were scoffing at the members of the newly elected National Assembly by calling them “local criminal authorities”, and so on? But those who had scoffed are taking page-long interviews with them today and thus contributing to their legitimization. Politics and the political field to a greater extent are also shaped with the help of the mass media and we cannot separate them from each other. It is the journalists who teach these “local criminal authorities” to speak on political subjects. In general, the languages of the political and journalistic fields are interconnected. If you have noticed, some dialectal and jargon nuances have appeared in the spoken language of some even most experienced and opposition journalists. One wonders from where. I'm half-joking, of course, but I consider it to be a manifestation of the solidarity of the political and journalistic fields.

Interview by Sara Petrosyan


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.