FORMATION OF OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTE IN ARMENIA WAS PREMATURE

Support A1+!

In Europe the institute of ombudsman is a parliamentary body, since human rights are violated by the executive power”, chairman of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia Avetik Ishkhanyan noted. He is against the appointment of the Ombudsman by the President. “Actually the formation of the institute of ombudsman of Armenia was a mere formal step in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of commitments to the CE”, he says. Aveti, Ishkhanyan considers that for real correspondence to the European standards the appointment of the human rights defender, guarantees of his independence and existence as a parliamentary body should be precisely fixed in the Constitution. “Otherwise we will not be able to say that the institute has been already formed in the RA”, he notes.

He also point out to the election of the human rights defender. “Taking into consideration the fact that the parliamentary majority depends on the executive power the election of the Ombudsman should not be conditioned by the NA majority only”, he stressed. In his opinion the terms of the Ombudsman’s office should be fixed in the Constitution and it should be no less that 3 and no more than 5 years. As for the re-election, it can take place only in case the correlation of forces has changed in the National Assembly, A. Ishkhanyan says.

When commenting of the activities of the institute of ombudsman in Armenia, he said, “Even in winter 2004 I stated that the human rights defender will face serious challenges having in mind the opposition rallies. Everyone knew that human rights will be violated at that time, however the developments exceeded all the expectations. Unfortunately the newly appointed Ombudsman did not pass the trial. The formation of the institute of ombudsman in Armenia was premature, as the Ombudsman was appointed by the President”, he resumed.

Victoria Abrahamyan