Devastating HRW on Armenian Tyranny Imposes Cancellation of the Gul – Erdogan Pro-Armenian Policy

By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

[ Posted On: 2009-03-14 ]

In an earlier article entitled “Turkey’s Ongoing Colonization: Only Reason for Recognizing Racist Armenian Tyranny”
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94451), I called for a master coup against the unrepresentative Erdogan gang of high traitors, freemasons and besotted pseudo-Islamists, who implement the Anti-Turkish colonial agenda of England and France; in fact, the colonial powers imposed on the Freemasonic pupils Gul and Erdogan the Turkish – Armenian rapprochement.

I stated that “the policy imposed on the unrepresentative Islamist pseudo-government of Gul and Erdogan is not only gravely detrimental to Turkey’s interests and prejudicial for the regional peace; it is also contradictory with the Anglo-French colonial contents’ demands for the supposed Turkey’s further democratization”.

I asked the following question that the unrepresentative Islamist government of Ankara cannot possibly answer:

- If Turkey should be further democratized and harmonized with Europe, then why should Turkey open its borders to a criminal tyranny denounced as such by the HRW in a lengthy and devastating Report?

I then republished the HRW Press Release issued on the occasion of the Report publication a few days ago. With the present article, I start republishing parts of the devastating HRW Report that imposes immediate cancellation of the pathetic choices of the Erdogan gang. I herewith republish the Contents, the Summary, and the Methodology. In forthcoming articles, I will republish further parts of the devastating HRW Report on the Armenian Tyranny.

Democracy on Rocky Ground

Armenia’s Disputed 2008 Presidential Election, Post-Election Violence, and the One-Sided Pursuit of Accountability

February 25, 2009

This 64-page report details the clashes between police and protesters in Armenia's capital, Yerevan, on March 1, 2008, in the wake of the disputed February 2008 presidential polls. It also documents the ill-treatment of individuals detained in connection with the violence, and lack of comprehensive investigation and accountability for excessive use of force on March 1 and in its aftermath. The report is based on more than 80 interviews carried out over three research missions in Armenia in 2008 and 2009.

Democracy on Rocky Ground
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/80933/section/1

Armenia's Disputed 2008 Presidential Election, Post-Election Violence, and the One-Sided Pursuit of Accountability

Map of Central Yerevan

I. Summary

II. Methodology

III. Background

Early Post-Soviet Politics and Society in Armenia

• - The Ter-Petrossian presidency, 1991-98..

Prevailing Characteristics of Armenian Party Politics

Disputes and Violence a Fixture in Armenian Elections

• - Ter-Petrossian's reelection, 1996..
• - Kocharyan's 1998 election and 2003 reelection

IV. The 2008 Presidential Election

V. The Post-Election Protests and Violence

Overview..

Armenia's International Legal Obligations on Police Use of Force

The March 1 Events in Detail

• - Early morning removal of protestors and protest camp at Freedom Square
• - Demonstrators gather near the French embassy
• - Violent clashes and police use of force
• - Shop looting and other criminal damage

State of Emergency

• - International reaction to the state of emergency
• - Post-state of emergency restrictions on freedom of assembly

VI. Ill-treatment and Torture

Treatment of People Detained in Connection with March 1

• - Armenia's international legal obligations regarding treatment of detainees
• - Cases of ill-treatment during arrest and in custody
• - Lack of opportunity to inform family members and access a lawyer of one's choice

VII. Official Investigation and Prosecution

Special Investigative Group and Parliamentary Commission

Investigation and Prosecution of Demonstrators

• - Controversial ongoing prosecution including three members of parliament
• - Complaints about the fairness of trial proceedings

Investigation of Excessive Use of Force

Investigation of Torture and Ill-Treatment

VIII. Recommendations

To the Armenian Government

• - Regarding the dispersal of and attacks on protestors
• - Regarding the treatment of people during arrest and in custody
• - Regarding the conduct of elections

To the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE)

To the United States and the European Union

Acknowledgements

I. Summary
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/80933/section/3

Police and protestors clashed in Armenia's capital Yerevan on March 1, 2008, bringing to a head the country's latest electoral dispute, over the results of a presidential poll in February. In the course of some 20 hours on March 1, in episodes at different city center locations, police variously set upon protestors without warning or resistance, negotiated, withdrew, returned to the offensive, and finally fought a pitched battle with a small group of protestors. At least ten people died-eight protestors and two police officers-and scores were injured.

The full picture of what happened in Yerevan on March 1 has yet to emerge. Law enforcement actions caused deaths and injuries at different times during the day and at different locations. The shifting dynamics between police and protestors mean that each police action needs to be assessed distinctly as to whether it went outside the boundaries of legitimate policing, as defined in international standards for use of force and firearms. Yet it is clear from multiple accounts that at various times police deployed excessive use of force, beating demonstrators who were not behaving aggressively, and some of the police use of firearms appears to have been indiscriminate or disproportionate. The fact that police were themselves under attack at times does not excuse those incidents where their own use of force was excessive. Neither does it excuse ill-treatment and torture of detained persons, nor the denial of due process rights such as access to lawyers of choice.

The demonstrators had been protesting the outcome of Armenia's presidential election on February 19, in which their candidate, Levon Ter-Petrossian, had lost to Serj Sargsyan. A group of protestors claiming that Sargsyan's victory was the result of fraud had established a continuous protest immediately after the election, with daily rallies and an overnight encampment on a city center square. Initially the authorities tolerated the protestors. A police pre-dawn raid on the camp on March 1, justified as a search for weapons, triggered the convening of a much larger demonstration elsewhere in the city center. By evening, with a major, violent confrontation unfolding on the streets of the capital, outgoing President Robert Kocharyan declared a 20-day state of emergency during which public gatherings and strikes were banned.

In the opening episode on March 1, riot police raided, dispersed, and dismantled the protestors' camp, beating protest participants including people who were entangled inside collapsed tents. Protestors regrouped in another part of the city center and their numbers swelled in the course of the morning; participants began to erect barricades and arm themselves with makeshift weapons. Police negotiated with protest leaders for relocation of the demonstration to a different venue, and withdrew to allow the protestors to move, but the large crowd stayed put. Confrontation flared between protestors and some police officers departing from the scene, leading to police cars being set alight and protestors attacking police who were guarding the nearby Yerevan city hall.

In the evening, riot police returned in force. Their actions to end the demonstration opened with overly aggressive measures-tracer bullet fire and teargas, and, according to witnesses, no verbal warnings to disperse-and they used excessive force against people who were not physically challenging them. Protestors who had armed themselves with metal rods, sticks, paving stones, and even petrol bombs, repulsed the police attack, and the police withdrew to a road junction a few hundred meters away. While the main demonstration continued peacefully behind the barricades, a group of protestors began attacking the police, and a number of the fatalities seem to have occurred as a result. Whereas some shootings appear to have occurred when the police were under direct attack, it appears police also shot at protestors deliberately and indiscriminately in circumstances where there is no evidence that lethal force was justified.

In the aftermath of the violence there were more than 100 arrests. Human Rights Watch spoke to people who had been beaten in the course of being arrested, and assaulted, verbally abused, and threatened while in police custody. Detainees we spoke with were denied the right to inform their families of their whereabouts, and were refused access to lawyers of their own choosing.

The Armenian authorities' response to the March 1 events has been one-sided. While they have investigated, prosecuted, and convicted dozens of opposition members, sometimes in flawed and politically motivated trials, for organizing the demonstration and participating in violent disorder, they have not prosecuted a single representative of the authorities for excessive use of force. The Office of the Public Prosecutor has also dismissed all allegations of ill-treatment and torture in detention as unfounded.

Electoral politics in Armenia since independence has remained stuck in a cycle of uneven contests, fraud, and disputes that more often than not spill onto the streets. There is low public confidence in the way elections are run, and widespread cynicism about their outcome. The functioning of Armenia's multiparty system and genuine political competition are also hampered by the persistent inability of the array of political parties to stabilize and consolidate. To the extent that it exists, real political competition is volatile with a permanent risk of violence, and mutual respect between electoral competitors-especially between victors and losers-is lacking.

Specifically in respect of the deaths and injuries occurring on March 1, the Armenian Office of the Public Prosecutor should increase its efforts to conduct an independent, impartial investigation to establish whether law enforcement officials acted within limits set in national and international law for crowd control and use of force. This investigation should also cover the allegations of ill-treatment of people detained in connection with their participation in the March 1 events, assessing whether the array of international and European standards against torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary detention, to which Armenia is party, were breached.

More broadly, there is a need to address the deficiencies and manipulations in Armenia's electoral processes that contribute to distrust in their fairness and doubts about their outcomes. National authorities, and international partners concerned about Armenia's democratic transition, need to address both the causes and the symptoms of the pervasive public skepticism that genuine democracy can be made to work in Armenia.

II. Methodology
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/80933/section/4

This report is based on interviews with over 80 witnesses and victims of the events of March 1, 2008, in Yerevan, as well as with family members and lawyers of those detained on March 1 and afterwards. The interviews were conducted during a mission to Yerevan by a Human Rights Watch researcher on March 10-15, and a second mission on March 24-April 1 during which that researcher was accompanied by a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. The report was updated by a consultant to Human Rights Watch during a third mission to Yerevan on January 13-17, 2009.

Human Rights Watch identified the victims and witnesses of the events of March 1, 2008, with the assistance of Armenian nongovernmental organizations, as well as through Armenian lawyers.

Human Rights Watch also met with the deputy police chief and with the head of the Special Investigative Group of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Armenia.

Most interviews were conducted in Russian, and some in English, by the primary researcher who is fluent in both Russian and English. A few interviews were conducted in Armenian, including those done by the senior researcher, during which a Human Rights Watch research assistant and a translator (both native speakers of Armenian), translated for the researchers into Russian and English.

In a few instances the full names of interviewees have been disguised with first names and initials (which do not reflect real names) at their request and out of concern for their security.

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard

About The Author: Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis - is Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, Islamologist, Historian and Political Scientist. Dr. Megalommatis, 52, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages.

| View Profile & All Articles By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis |

		Post Comment
		Blog This Article!
		Discuss Article in Forum(s)
		Publication \| Reprint Terms

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Colonialism Articles Via RSS!

| Category Feeds | All-in-one Feed | Other Feed & Syndication Options |

Additional Articles From - Home | Society & Culture | History | Colonialism

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email To Friends
	Ezine Ready \| Syndication
	Make PDF Article
	Share in FaceBook
	Post To del.icio.us
	Post To Furl
	Add To Google Bookmarks
	Submit To Propellor
	Add To Yahoo! My Web
	Add Main Feed To Outlook
	Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com

	Post To BookMarkAfrica.com

| More Subscription Options |

Site Home

Article Categories

More Search Options

Site Map

Submit Articles

Top Authors

Most Recent Articles