Մարտի մեկից հետո ժամանակ առ ժամանակ գիտակցում էի, որ անընդհատ մտքումս պտտվում են մեր իրավիճակում Գանդիի գաղափարների կիրառելիության-չկիրառելիության մասին մտքերրը: Հետո մի պահ գիտակցեցի, որ non-violent resistance, կամ сопротивление ненасилия հասկացությունը առ այսօր հայերեն չի արտասանվել: Շատ տարօրինակ է, քանի որ այս իրողությունը համահունչ չէ այն “ճշմարտություններին”, որ մենք արտասանում ենք հայերեն և համարում ենք, որ դրանք առաջին անգամ հայերեն են արտասանվել: Մի թե այդ գաղափարները այդքան խորթ են մեր մշակույթին, ավանդույթին ու մտածելակերպին, մի թե “առաջին քրիստոնյա ազգը”, “ցեղասպանություն ապրած ժողովուրդը” պարտավոր չէ լինել այդ գաղափարների դրոշակակիրը, կամ առնվազն ունենալ այդ արժեքային համակարգի թարգմանությունը հայերեն լեզվով:

Ուշագրավ մի փաստ` non-violence, ненасилие տերմինները ժխտող են, և հիմքում ընկած է այն, ինչը ժխտվում է` բռնությունը: Մեկ այլ փաստ` հայերենում այդ տերմինը նույնիսկ ժխտողական ձևով գոյություն չունի` մենք չենք կարող ասել “անբռնություն” կամ “չբռնություն”, մի գուցե այն պատճառով որ չենք հավատում, որ բռնությանը բռնությունից բացի կարելի է ինչ որ բան հակադրել:  Մի գուցե նաև այն պատճառով, որ մենք չենք ընդունում սուբյեկտ-սուբյեկտ հարաբերությունները` մեր ընկալմամբ ցանկացած զույգում մեկը գերիշխող է, մեկը` ենթարկվող: Ցավոք որպես ժողովուրդ մենք հիմնականում օբյեկտ ենք եղել ու շատ բան ենք կորցրել դրա արդյունքում: Ցանկը սարսափելի է` ինքնուրույն մտածելու, ինքնուրույն որոշում կայացնելու, վստահելու, բաց լինելու, երկարաժամկետ ծրագրեր կառուցելու և ամենակարևորը` սիրելու:

Կան մի շարք “սիրելներ”, որոնք մենք պահպանել ենք` ծնողներ, երեխաներ, ընտանիք, աշխատանք: Բայց նշված բոլոր տեսակները շատ անձնային ու լոկալ են, մենք կորցրել ենք ոչ պրագմատիկ սիրելու ունակությունը, մենք սիրում ենք, որովհետև այդպես է պետք, սկայան չենք սիրում որովհետև հնարավորություն կա սիրելու:

Հնարավոր է արդյոք ունենալ մեր ավանդույթի, մշակույթի ու արժեքային համակարգի վրա հիմնված մի գաղափարախոսություն, որը կարողանա դառնալ ընդհանուր բոլորի համար, համակարգի, որը մեր հարաբերությունները վերածելով սուբյեկտ-սուբյեկտ հարաբերությունների չլինի բռնի: Կարող ենք մենք ստեղծել մեր սեփական ոչ բռնի դիմադրության հայեցակարգը, և եթե կարող ենք ապա ով պետք է անի դա և ինչը պետք է ծառայի որպես հիմք:

Ոչ բռնի դիմադրության գաղափարների հայկականացման համար անհրաժեշտ է հասկանալ թե որոնք են մեր բռնության հայկական արմատները: Միայն այդպես է հնարավոր հակադրել դրան ոչ բռնի հայկական սկզբունք, որը վեհ ու մարդասիրական լինելուց բացի կլինի նաև գործող:

Հայկական բռնության արմատները խորն են ու շատ: Դրանց շարքին է կարելի դասել մեր սեգմենտար պատմությունը, ինքնուրույն լինելու ավանդույթի բացակայությունը, պետություն հասկացության թերրի ու խակ ընկալումը: Դրա հետ մեկտեղ կան նաև բարդույթներ և կարծրատիպեր որոնք լիովին այլ, բայց ոչ պակաս բացասական խումբ են ձևավորում`աշխատասեր, խելացի, աստվածընտիր, առաջին քրիստոնյա, հնագույն պատմություն ունեցող, աշխարհում ցանկացած քիչ թե շատ լուրջ ու կարևոր գործընթացներին գոնե գենային մակարդակում մասնակցություն ունեցող ազգ:  

Այս ամենի վտանգավոր լինելու գագաթնակետն այն է որ մենք այս ամենը բարձրաձայնում ենք որպես խնդիր, տխուր, հազարամյակների դարդը պարունակող հայացքով արձանագրում ցավալի իրողությունն ու մատնվում անգործության: Արդյունքում ստեղծվում է իրավիճակ, որում խնդրի առակայության մասին բոլորը գիտեն և համարում են որ այդ իմացությունը և իմացության բարձրաձայնումը արդեն լուծում է: Իսկ ճգնաժամն աստիճանաբար խորանում է, ճահիճը դառնում է էլ ավելի քաշող ու յուրաքանչյուր անտանելի խորացման արդյունքում մենք մի կարևոր բան կորցնում ենք` անկախություն, պետականություն, մեկուկես միլիոն մարդ և այլն: 

Հայաստանի իրավապահ մարմինները պատրաստվում են քրեական մեղադրանք ներկայացնել նախագահության նախկին թեկնածու Լեւոն Տեր-֊Պետրոսյանին: Այդ մասին ՙՖրանսպրես՚-֊ի թղթակցին հայտնել է Հայաստանի արդարադատության նախարար Գեւորգ Դանիելյանը:

ՙԱյսօր իրավապահները, որոնք հետաքննություն են անցկացնում, բավարար ապացույցներ ունեն Լեւոն Տեր-֊Պետրոսյանի նկատմամբ քրեական հետապնդում սկսելու համար՚,֊ - ասել է նախարարը:

ՙՔննությունը ցույց կտա, թե կոնկրետ ինչ մեղադրանքներ են ներկայացվելու նրան: Քաղաքական դաշտից նա անցել է քրեական դաշտ՚,֊ - կարծիք է հայտնել նախարարը:

Գեւորգ Դանիելյանը պաշտպանել է արտակարգ դրություն հայտարարելու որոշումը: ՙԲռնության, հրկիզման, ավտոմեքենաների ոչնչացման եւ անկարգությունների դեպքերը չեն կարող որակվել որպես քաղաքական գործողություններ: Ցուցարարների ձեռքին հսկայական քանակությամբ զենք եւ զինամթերք է կուտակված եղել՚,֊ - նշել է նախարարը:

Գեւորգ Դանիելյանը ասել է, որ արտակարգ դրությունը կարող է վաղաժամկետ վերացվել կամ երկարաձգվելª կախված հետաքննության տվյալներից, թե արդյոք անօրինական զենքերը մնո՞ւմ են ընդդիմության կողմնակիցների ձեռքին, թե՞ ոչ:

Նախօրեին Հայաստանի նախագահ Ռոբերտ Քոչարյանը հայտարարել էր, թե արտակարգ դրությունը ո'չ վաղաժամկետ վերացվելու է, ո'չ էլ երկարաձգվելու:

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/03/30090_en.pdf 

Blood on the streets
Mar 5th 2008
From The Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire

Post-election violence has killed eight people in Armenia


Armenia?s police and armed forces have killed at least eight demonstrators, who
were part of mass protests alleging vote-fraud in the recent presidential
election. The resort to lethal force is surprising in the Armenian context.
Although an uneasy calm has been restored, the authorities? conduct raises
questions about the country's political stability, as well as its progress
towards democracy.

Mean streets


On March 1st Armenia?s outgoing president, Robert Kocharian, declared a 20-day
state of emergency in Armenia, banning mass gatherings and placing the local
media under censorship, prohibiting them from reporting all but official
briefings. Officials had warned on several occasions that the post-election
demonstrations were illegal and, according to the authorities, Mr Kocharian
signed the relevant presidential decree when earlier attempts to disperse the
demonstrators failed. Although police had succeeded in removing protesters from
the city's main square earlier in the day, several thousand subsequently
regrouped, barricading themselves into streets in central Yerevan, following
what they described as the de facto house arrest of the opposition leader Levon
Ter-Petrosian.


When the demonstrators refused to leave, riot police and security forces moved
in. As the clashes intensified, some protesters set fire to police vehicles.
Once the state of emergency was declared, armoured personnel carriers were
deployed to break up the demonstration. Only when Mr Ter-Petrosian sent a
message to the demonstrators to leave the scene did the protesters finally
disperse. In the violence, at least eight demonstrators were killed and over a
hundred injured. The authorities have since stated that they had information
that the protesters were planning to use weapons to seize power. Although
reports indicate that some of the demonstrators were indeed armed, the
opposition has also credibly claimed that arms caches were planted by the
authorities to provide a pretext for the crackdown, and that so-called
provocateurs had infiltrated the demonstration to provoke violence.

Crying foul


The crisis follows ten days of continuous demonstrations in Armenia's capital,
where opposition protesters had camped out in the city's main square in an
attempt to force a rerun of the February 19th presidential election. According
to the official results, the establishment candidate, Serzh Sarkisian, won 52.8%
of the vote in the first round. Mr Ter-Petrosian (a former president who broke a
decade-long political silence to contest the election) received 21.5% based on
the official vote count?a result decried by his supporters as fraudulent. In the
run-up to the election and on polling day itself there were many accounts of
intimidation and violence against opposition activists and journalists, with
reports of vote-buying, multiple voting and ballot-box stuffing.


International observers, led by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation
in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) had
judged the election to be "mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe
commitments and standards", while noting the need for ?further improvements? to
tackle the ?remaining challenges.? However, all the opposition candidates
rejected the official result and several lodged an appeal with the
Constitutional Court, requesting that the court overturn the result and
authorise a fresh election.

A population at breaking point?


The scale of the post-election protests took observers and the authorities by
surprise, given the opposition's poor record in galvanising support and, in the
run-up to the election, a prevailing sense of apathy among the electorate.
Previous elections?none of which were judged free and fair by ODIHR
observers?passed largely without event, although demonstrations in early 2004 in
protest at the previous year's polls were also suppressed by security forces.


Before the election Mr Ter-Petrosian was unable to rally all of the opposition
behind him. Many citizens remembered not just his period in office in the 1990s,
which coincided with the economic hardships brought about in part by the war
with Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh, but also his decision in 1996 to order
tanks on to the streets to quell post-election protests. However, he has since
become the leader of an anti-government movement that is protesting not just at
the February election result, but also at the electoral process as a whole, in
which any hope of a rotation of power has long since dwindled.


Compounding disillusionment with the electoral process is the perception that
only a small elite have benefited from Armenia's rapid economic growth of recent
years. Yerevan is in many ways a changed city from even five years ago, with a
gleaming new central residential and commercial district (for which many
residents were forcibly evicted and moved to apartments in the city suburbs to
make way for the new buildings), rising numbers of visitors--albeit mainly from
the diaspora--and a proliferation of shops and cafes.


Yet life is becoming increasingly expensive for many citizens, as the presence
of monopoly importers of staple goods such as fuel and some foodstuffs has meant
that a strengthening currency has had little impact on prices of staple goods.
The stronger dram has also weakened the incomes of those households receiving
remittances from family members working overseas. And corruption is still rife,
with the public perceiving little official effort to combat it. Parliament is
viewed as acting to safeguard the interests of its members rather than those of
Armenia's citizens.

Keeping up appearances


The use of force to bring an end to the protest highlights the polarisation of
Armenia's political scene, where confrontation has tended to supersede dialogue
in resolving political differences. Whether the authorities and the opposition
can now embark on negotiations to break the impasse is questionable. The
president-elect, Mr Sarkisian, has kept a relatively low profile throughout the
recent events, and during the ten-day period of demonstrations had called on the
opposition to co-operate, inviting them to participate in coalition talks.


In this he was partially successful, persuading Artur Baghdasarian, leader of
the Orinats Yerkir party to join his government. Mr Baghdasarian and his party
have switched sides several times in the past few years, first participating in
a coalition government with the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA, Mr Sarkisian's
party) in 2003-06. Orinats Yerkir then contested the May 2007 election on an
opposition platform, coming third. Mr Baghdasarian declined to support Mr
Ter-Petrosian in the February 2008 election, and Mr Ter-Petrosian has denounced
his decision to switch back to Mr Sarkisian.


In the aftermath of the March 1st events Mr Sarkisian is likely to continue to
pursue the tactic of co-option. The OSCE has sent a representative to Yerevan to
assist in the negotiations, and Mr Sarkisian has probably judged that
international backing for him will be greatest if he is seen to push for talks
with the opposition, aimed at bringing them into government in some way. He is
nevertheless likely to reject any calls by the opposition for a fresh election.


Despite the opposition's display of relative unity in recent days, this could
prove shallow when tested. Moreover, if opposition leaders refuse to enter into
talks, they could risk losing international support. Western countries will have
little appetite for further upheavals in the South Caucasus, and are unlikely to
back prolonged opposition demonstrations if the authorities can demonstrate that
they have proffered an olive branch.

The Kocharian question


Should it prove necessary, Mr Sarkisian might attempt to dissociate himself from
Mr Kocharian, given that it was the outgoing president who imposed the state of
emergency that culminated in Saturday's crackdown. Whether Mr Kocharian has a
political future after he relinquishes the presidency?until now, he seemed on
course to become prime minister?is questionable.


On the one hand, if he wins the support of hardliners and those members of the
Republican Party dissatisfied with Mr Sarkisian--the party chairman--then Mr
Kocharian could argue that the events of recent days highlight the need for a
strong prime minister. His appointment to the position would be sure to enflame
the opposition, with the events of the past few days further eroding his already
weak legitimacy. On the other hand, given the enhanced powers that the prime
minister's office now has, following constitutional reforms enacted in 2005, Mr
Sarkisian might opt to appoint a weaker figure to the post, thereby ensuring
that he retains power in the presidency and simultaneously sidelines Mr
Kocharian.


With the state of emergency in force at least until March 20th, and Mr
Ter-Petrosian urging his supporters to observe the ban on demonstrations, an
uneasy calm is likely to prevail in the coming weeks. The next flashpoint is
likely to be the presidential inauguration, probably on April 9th, when the risk
of renewed violence is high. If the two sides have been unable to resolve the
impasse by then, Mr Sarkisian will have an uphill battle to persuade the public
of his commitment to democratic process.

Mi hat es angrageti hachotsnere nayeq!!!! Gosudarstvo eto ya vijak a. Iran Sahmanadrutunits bartsra dasum
Роберт Кочарян: После окончания срока ЧП власти еще некоторое время не должны санкционировать митинги и шествия в Ереване

Городские власти после окончания срока чрезвычайного положения еще некоторое время не должны санкционировать митинги и шествия в столице Армении, заявил 5 марта действующий президент Армении Роберт Кочарян, комментируя обещание кандидата в президенты, лидера оппозиции Левона Тер-Петросяна возобновить акции протеста после завершения чрезвычайного положения.

По словам Кочаряна, если будет проведен несанкционированный митинг, власти не будут больше ждать и отреагируют сразу во избежание повторения трагических событий 1-2 марта. В целом глава государства посчитал необходимым внести некоторые изменения в порядок проведения массовых мероприятий. "К примеру, можно отметить, что на площади Свободы могут проводиться митинги не более 1-2 раза в неделю", - заявил президент. Необходимость внесения подобных мер президент объясняет прошедшими событиями. В частности, по его словам, если бы митинг оппозиции был разогнан через три дня после его начала, последствия не были бы столь плачевными. Поскольку по истечении 9 дней митингующие уже были "в состоянии психоза". "Этим людям (организаторам - ИА REGNUM) было уже практически нечего сказать. Они хотели как можно дольше продержать людей на площади, фактически зомбируя их одними и теми же заявлениями", - добавил действующий глава Армении.

Комментируя вопрос о том, почему акция не была разогнана раньше, он заметил, что власти не хотели применять активных действий, пока идет процесс пересчета голосов и обжалование итогов выборов президента в КС.

Глава Армении также подчеркнул, что не видит пока причин как для того, чтобы продлевать чрезвычайное положение, так и для того, чтобы сократить его сроки. По его словам, местонахождение многих организаторов беспорядков неизвестно и до отмены ЧП должна быть уверенность, что события 1-2 марта не повторятся. Он напомнил, что пока еще остаются на свободе люди, которые применяли оружие и взрывные устройства. Роберт Кочарян отметил, что в создавшейся ситуации введение ЧП было необходимостью, что и показали дальнейшие события. Если бы этого не было сделано, жертв было бы больше и последствия для Армении были бы плачевными, подчеркнул он. "Был нанесен ущерб имиджу страны: еще месяц назад мы считались одной из быстроразвивающихся в регионе стран, и в один миг мне даже стало стыдно за свою страну, смотря на кадры с акции протеста", - заметил действующий глава Армении. Он призвал всех трезво оценивать произошедшее и, соответственно, работать над восстановлением имиджа страны.

Вместе с тем, по словам Роберта Кочаряна, оппозиция уже готовит почву для спекулирования вопросом ЧП, заявляя, что это влияет на работу судебных инстанций. Это делается специально для того, чтобы впоследствии поставить под вопрос легитимность решения КС, заметил глава армянского государства.

By Levon Ter-Petrossian
Wednesday, March 5, 2008; Page A21

YEREVAN, Armenia -- In Armenia's presidential election last month, I stood as the main opposition candidate against incumbent Prime Minister Serzh Sarkissian. The election followed a sadly familiar script: The regime harassed the opposition's representatives, bribed and intimidated voters, stuffed ballot boxes, and systematically miscounted votes. Indeed, the rigging of the outcome did not begin on Feb. 19. For the duration of the campaign the country's main medium of communication, television, which is tightly controlled by the regime, churned out propaganda that would have made Brezhnev-era Soviet propagandists blush in shame.

We in the opposition were angered by all of this but not surprised. What surprised and dismayed us was the deafening silence from the West. What dismayed us even more was the technical report of the observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which rubber-stamped Sarkissian's farcical claim of victory.

The people of Armenia, unlike the OSCE monitors, chose to see what happened at the polling stations. Naturally, they discounted Sarkissian's claim and gathered to demand annulment of the results. They staged a continuous protest at Opera Square that became the most wonderful celebration of freedom and one that should be studied as an example of nonviolent, lawful resistance against illegitimate rule.

Deeply concerned that the ranks of protesters were swelling by the day, the regime decided early Saturday to resort to force. Riot police were ordered to disperse the crowd, detain the opposition leaders and put me under house arrest. After several hours, citizens reassembled at another site, demanding to see their leaders, but instead they encountered more riot police, later reinforced by units of the Armenian army, which was ordered to crush the protest. At least eight people were killed this weekend, and emergency rule has been declared.

How did we come to this? Why did the regime headed by outgoing President Robert Kocharian and "president-elect" Sarkissian think it could get away with using force against its own people? Surely the two men had their reasons, but the West's signal, even if unintentional, that they did not have to worry about a strong international reaction was the most important one.

We in Armenia have been trying to understand the roots of such indifference to the rape of our democracy by the Kocharian-Sarkissian regime. The available evidence suggests two explanations: First, some influential organizations and actors in the West, and in Europe in particular, are naively wedded to the notion of positive reinforcement. They seem to think that praising small improvements, instead of criticizing major flaws, creates an incentive for good behavior. Anyone who has studied this regime closely, however, understands the absurdity of such an approach.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the oft-stated claim that the only people able to settle Armenia's long-standing conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region will be leaders who are themselves from Nagorno-Karabakh -- as Kocharian and Sarkissian are -- and who are perceived domestically as hard-liners. This is analogous to the "only Nixon could go to China" logic. The problem is that despite being in power for the past 10 years, Kocharian and Sarkissian have done little to move the negotiating process forward. More important, any leader who must make consequential and difficult choices must have the trust of his people. Sarkissian does not have that trust. After what he and Kocharian did on March 1, he will not be able to govern here, let alone make difficult choices.

So what should be done? What do the people of Armenia expect from the West, and the United States in particular? At the very least, we expect a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the violence that occurred March 1 and a recognition that the government, not the opposition, bears responsibility. This condemnation should accompany a stern warning against continued persecution of the opposition and its leaders -- mistreatment that is reaching unprecedented levels -- as well as a demand to lift the restrictions on the media and restore the people's rights to free assembly and unbiased information. We also expect a reassessment of the conduct of the election. Any serious reassessment will inevitably lead to the conclusion that a new election must be held.

If these steps are not taken, Armenians will draw two very undesirable conclusions: that peaceful and lawful means of political struggle are ineffective and pointless, and that the West cares about democracy only when it is politically expedient to do so. The West must do everything possible to dissuade Armenia's citizens from reaching those conclusions.

The writer was president of Armenia from 1991 to 1998 and was the main opposition candidate for president this year. He is under house arrest.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030402329.html

http://armenialiberty.org/armeniareport/report/ar/2008/03/9D2FA630-54A9-4E7E-AE80-B68B49B4F00A.ASP
http://armenialiberty.org/armeniareport/report/ar/2008/03/8D56BC77-450C-410F-A2EA-60B75DA628C4.ASP

For Immediate Release

Armenia: Civilians Die as Police Suppress Demonstrations and Riots

Authorities Should Swiftly Investigate Use of Lethal Force

(New York, March 2, 2008) – The Armenian government should launch a prompt and independent investigation into the use of lethal force by security forces to quell demonstrations and rioting overnight on March 1, 2008, Human Rights Watch said today. The violence occurred after a 20-day state of emergency was declared by President Robert Kocharian in response to an alleged threat to public order posed by opposition demonstrators.

Clashes between police and demonstrators in downtown Yerevan, the capital, on the night of March 1-2 resulted in at least eight deaths, according to the Armenian Health Ministry. Military forces deployed in Yerevan helped suppress the protests and riots. The ministry also reported that at least 131 people – including 57 police – were injured, some of them seriously. Many demonstrators have been reported missing, according to journalists and other observers in Yerevan.

"The Armenian government should swiftly investigate whether the police and army used lethal force against protesters in accordance with international standards," said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "While the government has a duty to maintain civic order, lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to protect life."

The protests began when tens of thousands of supporters of opposition presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosian took to the streets in downtown Yerevan on February 20 to denounce the declared election results and what they alleged to have been electoral fraud (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/21/armeni18128.htm). The protests continued peacefully on Freedom Square for the next 10 days, with some demonstrators camping out on the square in tents. Early in the morning on March 1, Armenian security violently dispersed the crowd.

Several demonstrators and eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch that violent clashes started late in the afternoon of March 1, after demonstrators refused to abide by police instructions to disperse. Police then shot tracer bullets, allegedly resulting in the first casualties, including the death of a demonstrator.

Later in the morning of March 1, protesters gathered in front of the French Embassy in downtown Yerevan. Their numbers grew substantially during the day, as did the police presence. Observers reported that police were equipped with rubber truncheons, electric-shock devices, and water cannons, and that military personnel arrived in armored personnel carriers. Several journalists present told Human Rights Watch that angry masses of people prepared for a confrontation with the security forces by arming themselves with stones, wooden sticks, and iron bars. Another demonstrator explained that people used nearby park benches and fences to find metal and wooden objects.

By about 5 or 6 p.m., tens of thousands of people had gathered near the French Embassy. A demonstrator told Human Rights Watch that the crowd wanted to march towards the home of Ter-Petrosian, who has been under effective house arrest since police had cordoned off his home. Demonstrators made a cordon around the rally area using cars and buses.

Violent clashes broke out, according to eyewitnesses, when a tracer bullet apparently struck and killed a demonstrator. Angry demonstrators cried for revenge and attacked the security forces. A local observer who watched a video recording of the events told Human Rights Watch that the video showed how demonstrators, demanding revenge, placed the dead body of a man, apparently in his 50s, on top of a car. Eyewitnesses reported that demonstrators then attacked police, who retreated. One protestor told Human Rights Watch how a group of young demonstrators chased police, set fire to police cars, and broke shop windows.

Persons in the vicinity told Human Rights Watch that they heard weapons being fired. A local source who watched video footage of the aftermath of some of the clashes told Human Rights Watch: "I saw thick layers of blood, parts of human bodies, several dead bodies... at least eight police cars were on fire... a lot of wounded, who cried for help and water, a lot of people with open head wounds, claiming that they had been assaulted by police... I saw also wounded police, a lot of blood, pools of blood."

"Police and security forces clearly faced an extremely difficult situation," said Cartner. "But they are still obliged to adhere to standards for the use of lethal force."

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials call upon law enforcement officials in the dispersal of violent assemblies to use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary. Lethal force may only be used when strictly unavoidable to protect life and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives.

Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned by reports from journalists and local observers that many demonstrators have gone missing. In the current state of emergency, with an effective media blackout, relatives have little access to information about their missing family members.

"Armenian authorities should promptly make the casualty list public, as well as the names of those arrested and places of detention," said Cartner. "The authorities should also not use the state of emergency to unnecessarily restrict freedom of information."

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Armenia is a party, governments may limit certain ICCPR rights only during a state of emergency that is declared during a "public emergency which threatens the life of the nation." Limits on rights and freedoms may only be to the extent strictly required by the situation. Governments must at all times guarantee the right to life, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment, the right to liberty and security of person, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, among other rights. The European Convention on Human Rights provides similar protections.

To read Human Rights Watch's news release on excessive use of force by police to disperse the demonstrators in the early morning of March 1, please visit:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/02/armeni18189.htm

To read Human Rights Watch's news release on election-related violence in Armenia, please visit:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/21/armeni18128.htm

For more information, please contact:

In Tbilisi, Giorgi Gogia (Georgian, Russian, English): +995-77-42-12-35 (mobile);

In New York, Rachel Denber (English, Russian, French): +1-212-216-1266; or +1-917-916-1266 (mobile)