Yerevan Woman Begins Sit-In Protest in Support of Jailed Husband

Lala Bernetsyan, wife of Yerevan man Edvard Zeytunyan arrested on July 25 after clashing with police in Yerevan’s Sari Tagh neighborhood, has begun a sit-in protest outside the office of Armenia’s General Prosecutor on Monday to support her husband. Zeytunyan, for his part, went on a hunger strike on March 25 demanding that authorities either specify the charges against him or otherwise release him.

Bernetsyan has also asserted that her husband – who is suffering from blood pressure problems – has had a health deterioration during the course of the hunger strike; however, according to the woman, officials have refused to provide him with medical care, claiming that they could not give the man medication because he was on a hunger strike. Bernetsyan has since contacted the office of Armenia’s Human Rights Ombdusman and found out that there was no law depriving hunger-striking prisoners of their due medication; the Ombudsman’s staffers have promised to deal with the issue.

Note, ten Sari Tagh men are facing charges for allegedly committing violence against law enforcement officers during the clashes that occurred in the neighborhood on July 19, the second day of the stand-off in the nearby police headquarters in Yerevan’s Erebuni district; if convicted, they could face up to 10 years in prison.

The arrestees, on the other hand, insist that the charges against them are unfounded and too vague; they have recently addressed a letter to the General Prosecutor, pointing out the discrepancies between the pre-trial and in-court testimonies of the allegedly affected police officers, none of whom, incidentally, has identified any of the accused. Moreover, the officers have acknowledged that the Sari Tagh men had taken to the street because of their household problems.

“This suggests that [the arrestees’] actions were not directed against the law enforcement officers, and therefore the Article 316.2 of the Armenian Criminal Code cannot be applied to them,” the letter said.

In its response, however, the Prosecutor’s office deemed the men’s claims unjustified, insisting that the officers’ failure to identify the accused “does not imply that the charges are false.”