“Aravot” implies that a monument sculpted by a contemporary artist “who, together with us, has gone through the October 27, 1999 [parliament attack]” would be a better option to perpetuate the memory of the victims of that attack than the work by eminent sculptor and artist Yervand Kochar that was unveiled in the National Assembly park on Tuesday.
“Thank God, there is no shortage of talented sculptors in Armenia,” the “Aravot” editor writes.
“Hraparak” writes on the subject of the 10th anniversary of the parliament attack. “No matter how much the relatives of the [eight] victims hate the authorities and want to avoid meeting them, they still have to stand next to them on this commemoration day. But a remarkable scene could be witnessed yesterday when arriving at the city pantheon three senior government-linked lawmakers, including Parliament Speaker Hovik Abrahamian, did not greet the first president of Armenia. And during the ceremony of the unveiling of the monument in the yard of the National Assembly, [President] Serzh Sarkisian and his entourage did not greet the families of the victims.”
“This is a disgrace, we cannot call it otherwise,” the paper adds.
Rafik Petrosian, a member of the ruling Republican Party’s parliamentary faction, outlines to “Hayots Ashkhar” what he views as shortcomings in the annual report by the Armenian ombudsman that was recently presented in parliament.
Regarding the part of the report concerning courts, Petrosian says: “He [the ombudsman] did not bring any case to the administrative court with a demand to examine the correspondence of normative acts to laws. Meanwhile, there are a lot of provisions that contradict the laws of the republic that contribute to violations in court proceedings. This is one of the traditional omissions of the ombudsman. Not trusting the objectivity of the court has turned into a stable habit.”
“But the biggest mistake of the ombudsman is that…he thought that the more he, appropriately or inappropriately, criticizes the state, its system and agencies, the better. But instead of trying to discredit the state in every possible way, he should have directed his criticism at concrete officials who violate the Constitution and laws,” added Petrosian.
“Haykakan Zhamanak” attacks Ombudsman Armen Harutiunian’s statement in which he said that “it is not always that whatever the government does is good for the state and whatever the opposition does is bad for the state.”
The paper sees that by this the ombudsman may have implied that “the government mainly does good things for the state with occasional omissions, while the opposition, as a rule, does bad things for the state, but does something good once in a while.”
“Hraparak” writes on the subject of the 10th anniversary of the parliament attack. “No matter how much the relatives of the [eight] victims hate the authorities and want to avoid meeting them, they still have to stand next to them on this commemoration day. But a remarkable scene could be witnessed yesterday when arriving at the city pantheon three senior government-linked lawmakers, including Parliament Speaker Hovik Abrahamian, did not greet the first president of Armenia. And during the ceremony of the unveiling of the monument in the yard of the National Assembly, [President] Serzh Sarkisian and his entourage did not greet the families of the victims.”
“This is a disgrace, we cannot call it otherwise,” the paper adds.
Rafik Petrosian, a member of the ruling Republican Party’s parliamentary faction, outlines to “Hayots Ashkhar” what he views as shortcomings in the annual report by the Armenian ombudsman that was recently presented in parliament.
Regarding the part of the report concerning courts, Petrosian says: “He [the ombudsman] did not bring any case to the administrative court with a demand to examine the correspondence of normative acts to laws. Meanwhile, there are a lot of provisions that contradict the laws of the republic that contribute to violations in court proceedings. This is one of the traditional omissions of the ombudsman. Not trusting the objectivity of the court has turned into a stable habit.”
“But the biggest mistake of the ombudsman is that…he thought that the more he, appropriately or inappropriately, criticizes the state, its system and agencies, the better. But instead of trying to discredit the state in every possible way, he should have directed his criticism at concrete officials who violate the Constitution and laws,” added Petrosian.
“Haykakan Zhamanak” attacks Ombudsman Armen Harutiunian’s statement in which he said that “it is not always that whatever the government does is good for the state and whatever the opposition does is bad for the state.”
The paper sees that by this the ombudsman may have implied that “the government mainly does good things for the state with occasional omissions, while the opposition, as a rule, does bad things for the state, but does something good once in a while.”