Mané Tandilyan, head of the Country to Live party, criticized Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan’s response to a letter by Ruben Vardanyan, who is imprisoned in Baku, saying the tone was “close to silence and indifference” and unacceptable.
“To say that I am disappointed by the Human Rights Defender’s response to the letter of Ruben Vardanyan, who has been unlawfully imprisoned in Baku, would be to say nothing,” Tandilyan stated.
“Zero percent empathy, complete indifference, excessively formal language, and a response that resembles a bureaucratic note more than the voice of a human rights defender. That is what can be understood from Ms. Manasyan’s lengthy reply.
A person unlawfully convicted in Baku is more courageous and more just than the official holding the ombudsman’s position, who should now, at all levels, using all humanitarian and legal mechanisms, be raising the alarm about the violated rights of captured compatriots and demanding their immediate return.
No one expects miracles from the ombudswoman. No one encourages abuse of position under any circumstances. But there is a minimum expectation — a clear assessment, strong language, and visible effort to use all available legal and humanitarian mechanisms. A tone close to silence and indifference is simply unacceptable.
Even if some work is being done behind closed doors, it does not justify such a weak and colorless response in the public sphere. The institution of the ombudsman also bears responsibility before society to show that the state stands by its citizens, especially when they are in the most vulnerable situation,” the statement said.
Armenia’s Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan had responded to a message conveyed by Ruben Vardanyan during a phone call with his family from a Baku prison, in which he called for visits to detainees. Manasyan noted that her office had not received any official proposal for cooperation on the matter, nor confirmation that the Azerbaijani side was ready to facilitate such cooperation.
She also provided clarifications regarding the mandate and powers of the Human Rights Defender’s office.
