Why is the Human Rights Defender’s Office Under Threat? An Announcement by Ani Samsonyan

Why is the Human Rights Defender’s Office under threat? This announcement has been made by Ani Samsonyan, the Vice Chair of the Armenian National Assembly's Committee on Human Rights Protection and Public Affairs.

The announcement states: “The Constitution of the Republic of Armenia says that the state ensures proper funding for the operation of the Human Rights Defender. The constitutional law on the Human Rights Defender guarantees the conditions for the defender's activities, including social and financial aspects. The law outlines that 'Each year, the amount allocated in the state budget for the funding of the Defender and his staff, as well as for the Defender as a national preventive mechanism, cannot be less than the amount allocated in the state budget of the previous year. The funding envisaged by the state budget is carried out in equal monthly proportions as a prepayment for each month.'”

Why is this important? Because the office is funded by the state budget, the legislator aimed to create a mechanism that prevents government interference in the office's independence, avoiding any influence or pressure.

What is the Armenian Government doing now? The government has decided that this constitutional and legal guarantee protecting the Human Rights Defender's office should be eliminated and has proposed a draft law to remove this provision from the legislation. It results in the government having discretionary power to decide how much funding to allocate to the Human Rights Defender's office. This will become an excellent tool for exerting pressure on the Human Rights Defender. The independence of the office will be undermined, and the institution will be dismantled.

Therefore, we can draw three conclusions regarding the authority: 1. It does not tolerate the independence of the Human Rights Defender and aims to limit it. 2. It does not realize that removing this legal guarantee poses a risk to the existence of the institution. 3. Assuming it tolerates the independence of the Human Rights Defender, understands the consequences of this change, but proceeds with this action without appreciating the Human Rights Defender's role in the security, democracy, and public welfare of our state.

In any case, the authorities are engaged in irreparable harm. I do not know, perhaps the recent years of increased influence and trust in the Human Rights Defender have unsettled the authorities. If they are not unsettled, then this law will be rejected by the ruling party members in the National Assembly, demonstrating respect for the institution and a sense of its importance.