Opinions on Armenia’s Lustration Law: Were They Informers or Are They Serving the People?

A draft Law on Lustration proposed by the Heritage Party became a hot topic of public discussion over the past month. Director of the RA National Security Service Gorik Hakobyan on Friday criticized the bill put forth by the parliamentary opposition, stating that “no special service operates and cannot operate without a network of agents and even the precedent of disclosing agents who cooperated in the past will strike a significant blow to the entire security system.”

Note, the draft Law on Lustration aims to declassify individuals who worked for the Committee for State Security, intelligence services and investigators of the former Soviet Union before the Sept. 21, 1991 referendum on Armenia’s independence.

Speaking to Epress.am, former Deputy Director of the RA National Security Service Gurgen Yeghiazaryan, human rights campaigners Mikail Danielyan and Vardan Harutyunyan provided their take on the lustration bill and Gorik Hakobyan’s statement.

In Yeghiazaryan’s opinion, “such a bill is simply treachery.”

“This is not a bill, this is a shame. I can read to you what they mean when they speak of lustration…: ‘Lustration of individuals who collaborated or worked secretly or openly with foreign special services or agencies carrying out state security intelligence, anti-intelligence and operational intelligence activities.’ What does this mean — it means that we have to declassify all those people who worked for Soviet Armenia, in the name of their country. These people, if they are alive and well today, work with the same diligence for the Republic of Armenia. Who is this generally necessary for — perhaps everyone except the people of Armenia. This law won’t be ratified; it will remain a draft law. This whole story tied with lustration — all it is is a storm in a glass of water. And the creators of this storm with this glass are pursuing another purpose. As much as possible, to fulfill the orders of those giving them, and, why not, in all likelihood, there are many other interests inlaid in its foundation,” he said.

Human rights campaigner Vardan Harutyunyan doesn’t rule out the possibility that the bill needs to be amended or supplemented. He believes that the law on lustration is overdue, but it’s not too late to adopt it.

“I think that a network of agents, in the first place, has to be understood to be that branch of state security during the Soviet era which was involved in political persecutions. That is — at least how I imagine it —, we’re talking about those individuals who were recruited as agents… who participated in, organized, and assisted political persecutions of people. Because of them, their faults, their lies, imaginary or not imaginary actions, numerous people were destroyed,” he said.

Mikail Danielyan also paid special attention to the fact that lustration refers to those who provided cases (that is, turned in their family, friends or neighbors to the secret police) or informers. In his opinion, it’s necessary to expose those who ruined the destinies of innocent people, but this shouldn’t be about professional agents.

“I wouldn’t lay a hand on a professional agent — I would speak about those who are popularly referred to as informers… The most dangerous are those who didn’t receive a salary but ‘provided cases,’ because they had a bad role in the destinies of various families and individuals,” he said.