The Human Rights Defender, Ms. Kristinne Grigoryan, has participated in the Armenian Forum for Democracy of the Freedom House on "Democratic consolidation and human rights advocacy in Armenia".
The Defender delivered a speech at the panel discussion, "Democratic consolidation and human rights advocacy in Armenia".
During her speech, the Defender particularly mentioned:
“Democracy is a choice; a choice that must be followed by daily work towards the better, a more accountable, more transparent governance, and the better guaranteeing of the protection of human rights. Armenia made that choice a long time ago, and it is advancing forward. Democracy is not a goal and there are new challenges in that process every day.
After the 44-day war, some members of the society, including intellectuals, actively questioned the choice made in favor of democracy by our country. These people were questioning that, if during such a war and in the post-conflict situation democracy creates greater responsibilities and risks while dealing with authoritarian neighbors, then we should maybe rethink, do we need that democracy, which had become a heavy burden during and after the war, and which did not permit us to run faster in that marathon of life and death.
Irrespective of the period and situation, the lack or absence of justice deforms and weakens the democratic system. Justice for the families of the missing persons and persons who are still illegally kept in Azerbaijan after the war, is not attained; they are demanding and waiting for justice. The wounds of the returned prisoners of war and their families need time to heal. The families of our compatriots who died during the war are mourning and looking for relief. Numerous displaced persons who lost their homes and normal life are looking for social justice and are learning to be more resilient, keeping a hidden hope that one day they might return to their homes.
All these groups of people are part of the society, and their trauma is yet to be overcome; therefore, the collective trauma of our society has not been overcome.
Within the context of the mandate of the Human Rights Defender, I meet these people almost every day, their issues are numerous, however, the biggest problem is the yearning for justice.
This post-war trauma situation brings with it new challenges, both in relation to the democratic process and the protection and promotion of human rights. Extremely polarized public discourse and hate speech are the most vivid manifestations and consequences of that collective trauma.
I know that hate speech is a challenge that exists in several countries where no wars have taken place, however, in the case of Armenia, the war and its consequences, and the attempts to normalize relations with neighbors create a tenser and more "provocative" environment for the dissemination of hate speech.
Of course, Armenia is also not free from the global anti-democratic tendencies; human rights defenders are also targeted by groups which have differing views about the choice of democracy.
For instance, we have lawyers who are taking legal actions to cease the activities of non-governmental organizations which are engaged in the protection of human rights. These people consider that banning the activities of such organizations is itself a process to protect human rights, and that they are the human rights lawyers with the correct national values.
In the context of issues related to human rights protection, there are even decision-makers in the National Assembly who believe that the principle of universality of human rights should be adapted to the distinction between the so-called fundamental and marginal rights. However, democracy is also about ensuring that the voices of all groups are heard, and in this context, our daily work should be aimed at maintaining the immune system of democracy healthy. What does this mean?
This means that democratic institutions, such as state governing bodies, independent institutions, civil society, independent and professional media, must be protected from any disproportionate attacks and threats. This also implies that we must continue to improve the mechanisms of protection of human rights. This means that the rule of law should not be subordinated to the so-called “more important public good”, and that by keeping important problems and issues out of public scrutiny and discussions for decades does not lead us to a better place.”
The panel discussion was summarized with a question and answer session between the speakers and the participants.
Հայերեն
