Georgia Seeks to Regain “Paper” Control of Lost Borders See also: Inviolable Borders: Georgian Court Sentences Armenian to One Year, Inviolable Borders: Georgians Arrest Armenian for Abkhazia Visit Hetq has already covered the case of RoA citizen Arman Ghazaryan, who was arrested by Georgian authorities and sentenced to one year imprisonment for entering Georgian territory from the breakaway republic of Abkhazia. Readers will recall that Arman was tracked down by Artur Sakounts, Director of the Vanadzor branch of the Helsinki Civil Assembly. Recently, Hetq had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Sakounts about his political views on the incident and its legal underpinnings. Referring to the legal basis for the arrest of Arman Ghazaryan, Mr. Sakounts placed no great importance on the existence of an Abkhaz stamp in Arman’s passport. Even if there was no stamp, it doesn’t mean that the person didn’t pass through Abkhaz territory. The fact remains that he exited from Russia. The registered stamp in the passport points out the specific border crossed. The stamp also notes the route taken; whether by land or air. The direction travelled is clear from these two factors. Thus, it’s not important whether a stamp was issued at the Abkhaz border or not. Mr. Sakounts also doesn’t place much importance on the plea bargain signed by Arman. “It makes no difference if such a plea bargain was signed. It’s the most absurd of documents. In other words, I sign an obligatory note that deprives me of the right to speak, and it is accepted as a basis that I have no right to speak out?” he notes. The attorney then goes on to evaluate the Georgian law that allowed for the detention of Arman, the sixth such victim so far this year. In 2009, nine such cases were registered of RoA citizens being criminally indicted with border violations. This law, adopted during the tenure of Saakashvili, defines the criminal penalties for crossing the Russian-Georgian border from prohibited areas; either imprisonment or a monetary fine. There is practically no Georgian oversight in such areas, but Tbilisi considers them to be the country’s sovereign territory. According to Sakounts, this law has obvious political significance. The position of Georgia is that even though it might not enjoy effective control over these areas, at least it can extend control by means of legislation. By doing so it solves a political problem; it isolates Abkhazia and South Ossetia. “We are dealing with an issue whereby a government has no effective control over a piece of territory but, by passing a series of laws, seeks to regain control. But if a government possesses no effective control over a strip of border, then it should also have no legal jurisdiction to pursue criminal charges when such a border is crossed,” says Mr. Sakounts. The attorney argues that such a law violates the principles of the Helsinki Accords; an important one being the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Mr. Sakounts is convinced that increased contact amongst peoples also increased the potential for peaceful conflict resolution. The fact that Georgia has taken the route of detention, isolation and punishment doesn’t bode well for the chances of peaceful resolution of the issue. By exercising such a law, the Georgian authorities are clearly violating a citizen’s right to freedom of movement and the right to a free and fair trial. This is in clear violation of the principles set down in the European Convention of Human Rights. “This legal act is much more repressive in character. The citizen is left alone to face such a repressive law. You pass and implement a law, but this is not a case where espionage or aggression was carried out against the state of Georgia, its government bodies or any of its citizens. Georgia has gone the route of repression and has detained a person on baseless and illegal grounds. Banish him, deport him. What you have done is not averting a perceived threat but punishing with the force of imprisonment,” says Mr. Sakounts. “In addition, you have taken measures against a person in a territory that still is of questionable status. Such logic goes against the spirit of the European Council and its approaches. It’s also abhorrent from a humanistic viewpoint.” Mr. Sakounts is quick to label what has happened to Arman Ghazaryan as a terrible injustice since he was able to freely enter Georgia from Abkhazia and travel freely through Georgia. A problem only arose when Arman was leaving Georgia. Mr. Sakounts argues that the Georgian authorities have deemed it vital to monitor the nation’s borders in those areas that remain under its control; in this case the Georgian-Abkhazia border. However, if they do so, it would signify that they recognize the unique status of those areas, given that they have delineated a border. “At least they should define some sort of legal regime that, instead of delineating a border, says the following – given that in reality I cannot exercise control, I am monitoring just this area, but it isn’t a border. But when a citizen was preparing to leave Georgia they told him ‘you illegally crossed into Georgia’. It is obviously ridiculous,” says Mr. Sakounts. The attorney is also irritated by the passive circumspect approach adopted by the authorities in Armenia. “Our officials in Armenia are really scared and so feeble that they won’t take any steps to resolve the matter. Let me be blunt. Our Armenian officials give priority to strategic considerations over any defense of the rights of the country’s citizens. If the rights of a citizen from the United States, Germany or the Netherlands were ever to be violated, these governments are obliged to assist without regard to other considerations. But our government fails to take any step to see that the rights of its citizens are defended. In the view of Mr. Sakounts, well-known locally as a human rights defender, on the face of it, the problem at hand pits Russia and Georgia, two members of the European Council against one another. In reality, it is also an issue between Armenia and Georgia. He argues that the Armenian government must raise the issue at the parliamentary session of the European Council and it must be done in the context of human rights and not merely a matter of Armenian-Georgian relations. An appeal must be launched against the court verdict that has lead to the imprisonment of Arman Ghazaryan. Such an appeal must be heard in the superior courts of Georgia and all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Hopefully, during the appeals process, Arman will have been released from Gldan jail, but the European Court should still take the time to appraise the Georgian law in question and evaluate it according to accepted European standards. Mr. Sakounts believes that only in this way will a judicial precedent be established.