On June 9, 2004 the Court of First Instance of the Kentron and Nork-Marash Communities of Yerevan began its examination of the suit brought by the Association of Investigative Journalists NGO against the Yerevan Mayor's Office. We remind you that last October, the association's chairman, Edik Baghdasaryan, requested permission from Mayor Yervand Zakharyan to see the decisions regarding land allocations in the public park surrounding Yerevan's Opera House taken from 1997 to 2003 by former mayors of Yerevan. The mayor's chief of staff, Samvel Koshetsyan, sent the following message in reply: "In response to your letter addressed to the Mayor's Office, I would like to inform you that you should specify the exact kind of information you intend to receive from the Yerevan Mayor's Office." The association then appealed to the mayor's boss, President Robert Kocharyan, who forwarded the letter to the mayor's office. Again, the association received a reply from the mayor's chief of staff. This time it said: "In response to your letter dated November 21, 2003 addressed to the president, we would like to inform you that Art. 4 and Art. 27 of the Law on Mass Media quoted by your association define the rights of a journalist but do not define the responsibilities of a state official. We should also note that the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations does not define the provision of information as a mandatory requirement, either. Meanwhile, it is necessary to stress that the Mayor's Office has never refused to provide information, and as far as the questions raised by the association are concerned, in view of their un-specified character, the Mayor's Office considers it impossible to provide such information."

Unable to obtain the necessary information through legal means, the Association of Investigative Journalists was forced to appeal to the court in the hope that it would oblige Mayor Zakharyan to fulfill his duty.

Edik Baghdasaryan stated at the beginning of the court session presided over by judge Gayane Karakhanyan that he was prepared to settle the dispute "if the Mayor's Office provides the information in question within three days." The representative from the mayor's office stated that the municipal authorities were prepared to provide the information, if it was specified exactly which documents regarding which cafés and other establishments were being requested. Edik Baghdasaryan explained that he needed the decisions regarding the land allocations in the public park surrounding Yerevan's Opera House taken over the last seven years. The journalist could not name all the cafés and entertainment establishments since some of them are under construction and bear no names. The mayor's representative requested a week to respond to Baghdasaryan's inquiry. After the court session, the Association of Investigative Journalists sent an additional letter to the mayor's office: "We request to be provided with, within the one-week period prescribed by the court, the list of cafés and other establishments in the public park surrounding Yerevan's Opera House, i.e. within the territory limited by Mashtots Avenue and Tumanyan Street, Mashtots Avenue and Sayat-Nova Street, and by the Sayat-Nova Street - Teryan Street and Teryan Street - Tumanyan Street intersections, and the decisions regarding the land allocations for these establishments."

Although by June 21 st , the date of the second court session, the one-week time-period requested by the mayor's representative and granted by the judge had passed, the Mayor's Office had neither provided the Association of Investigative Journalists with the information nor passed a decision on "the possibility of providing such information". Instead, during the second session, Karine Danielyan from the Mayor's Office presented the court with a June 16, 2004 letter signed by the head of the legal department of the Mayor's Office, A. Sargisyan, stating: "It is not clear from your letter what establishments specifically you are implying you want information about. Under these circumstances, the Yerevan Mayor's Office cannot provide you with any information."

During both the first and second sessions of the court, the mayor's representative maintained that they "would provide the information if the names of specific establishments were mentioned". The association's lawyer, Ara Zohrabyan, objected by stating that the request was more then specific, as the names of all streets enclosing the territory where the cafés are located were mentioned, and that an organization has a right to request information by mentioning either the names or the location of establishments.

In the face of the Mayor's Office's stubborn determination, Ara Zohrabyan asked,

"How and from whom can the applicant get the information about the establishments within this territory if not from the mayor's office, which is the state entity governing this territory?"

"Formulate your questions about specific business entities," the mayor's lawyer retorted.

Judge Gayane Karakhanyan seemed to take his side: "Why don't you apply to the State Cadastre on real estate? Ask them, find out the names, and then request that the mayor's office give you information on specific establishments?"

The judge's second question was more astonishing: "Why don't you try other ways of obtaining the information?"

"The Mayor's Office is the main source of such information; it possesses all the information about land allocations in Yerevan," Zohrabyan responded.

In his closing remarks, the lawyer drew the court's attention to the fact that "the respondent was unable to give reasons for its negligence, and the respondent couldn't prove that it was unable to grant the plaintiff's request because of the absence of such information." He told the court, "The mayor's office is simply avoiding providing information and, moreover, it is not mentioning any legal grounds for refusing to provide information."

After some deliberation, Judge Gayane Karakhanyan read out her verdict: "The complaint of the Association of Investigative Journalists NGO accusing the Yerevan Mayor's Office of negligence is dismissed."

The association will challenge the verdict in the Court of Appeals.