submitted reports was rejected by the investigation body, one remained unanswered. The decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case was appealed to the prosecutor supervising the investigation of the case. Two of the appeals were satisfied, one was rejected. The prosecutor’s decision to reject the appeal was appealed in court. Information on the progress of the pending case has not yet been provided to the applicant.
Hate speech displayed by state officials, discriminatory attitude The peril of hate speech can be higher due to the identity of its author, its role, and behavior in society. Hate speech expressed by officials is considered more dangerous, as they are official representatives of decision-making bodies, public policymakers, and, accordingly, opinion-makers in society. Political-religious leaders should refrain from using intolerant calls or expressions that could provoke violence, hostility, or discrimination. They also play a key role in speaking out against intolerance, discriminatory stereotypes, and hate speech71. The words used by the representatives of the National Assembly, their attitude towards the problems of vulnerable and minority groups play a particularly important role, especially due to two main circumstances. First, elected to the highest body of the state, the deputies of the National Assembly are supposedly persons with a high rating and audience in the society. And secondly, the National Assembly, being a legislative body, has as its main function the adoption of laws, the implementation of changes and additions in them, consequently, the approach of the representatives of that body has a direct impact on the legislative process. As before, in 2020, there were cases of hate speech expressed by officials targeting homosexual, bisexual and trans people. It is noteworthy that in the examples presented below, the authors of the speech were the deputies of the 2nd largest faction of the National Assembly, “Prosperous Armenia Party”, about whom examples were also presented in reports of the previous years72. This is due, first, to the fact that despite the policy of combating hate speech adopted by the authorities, no active steps have yet been taken to bring the authors of hate speech to justice. It should be reminded that not only reports of hate speech uttered by the same persons or other representatives of the same faction during the previous year were submitted to the police, but also an application was submitted to the National Assembly to form an ad hoc ethics committee to assess the deputies’ behavior73. As an example, the statements of the deputy of the National Assembly “Prosperous Armenia” faction Gevorg Petrosyan are presented with quotations. Regarding the receipt of a bonus payment by the Minister of Education, Science, 71 Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial, or religious hatred. 2013. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf. 72 Pink Human Rights Defender NGO. Annual report. “Human Rights Situation of LGBT People in Armenia During 2019”. Section 5: Public Speeches of State Officials. 2019. https://www.pinkarmenia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/lgbtreport2019en.pdf. 73 Pink Human Rights Defender NGO. “Hate Speech Displayed by State Officials Towards LGBT People in Armenia During 2004-2018”. 2019. https://www.pinkarmenia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ hatespeech_en.pdf.
38
