On June 28 the parliament continued the work of the special session debating the draft law on Making Amendments and Addenda to RA law on Simplified Tax.

Mr. Styopa Safaryan, Secretary of the faction expressed the view of the Zharangatyun faction on the debating draft law. He informed the MPs that the Zharangutyun is ready to participate in the developing works of the Tax Code. The faction is abstentious for adopting the draft law.

Mr. Gagik Minasyan, presented the view of the RPA faction.

Mr. Armen Alaverdyan, Deputy head of the Tax State Service adjunct to the government, in his final speech divided the MPs’ proposals into two groups: general economic and proposals concerning the draft law, which will be used for the re-editing of this draft law, as well as for the elaboration of the Tax Code.

Mr. Gevorg Danielyan, Justice Minister presented for the first reading the draft laws on Amending the RA law on Television and Radio and on Making Addendum to the RA law on State Duty.

Mr. Raffi Hovhannisian, head of the Zharangutyun faction, presented the view of the faction. He urged the leadership of the National Assembly not to put the issue for voting, which violates the law - NA Rules of Procedure. Zharangutyun faction will vote against the adoption of the draft law.

Mr. Mher Shahgeldyan expressed the view of the Orinats Yerkir faction. He assessed the legislation initiative in the political context, which is related to the formation of the political system of the state.

Mr. Aram Safaryan, secretary of the faction informed the MPs that Bargavach Hayastan/Prosperous Armenia faction would vote for the adoption of the draft law.

Mr. Samvel Nikoyan, secretary of the RPA faction presented the view of that faction. He said that the RPA would vote for the adoption of the faction.

Mr. Tigran Torosyan, NA President, in his special speech touched upon the issues that the MPs were interested in and made clarifications over the provisions of the law: “It was said that the Rules of Procedure is violated etc., there is absolutely nothing like that. Yesterday I proposed our colleagues, who have such doubts, meet and discuss their concerns in peace without time limitation. I have no doubt that the concerns are honest, but if there is a desire to clarify the issue, we must accept the proposals, discuss and receive answers. For example, it is suggested not to vote this draft law, the Rules of Procedure does not give such possibility anybody, irrespective of the fact who is for this question and who is against it. We must discuss, vote expressing with that our own position. They talk about infringements against freedom, violations of human rights, damaging the relations with the U.S. and other issues, which I’m convinced, has nothing to do with this issue. I would fully agree with the questions, if there were substantiations, and those substantiations would be connected with this draft law. Unfortunately, there is no substantiation, moreover, they speak about substantiation presented only enclosed to this draft law, concentrating on this and wording and the amendment to the law on State Duty. The fact, that the amendment needs editing, is evident, and regarding the substantiation, that is not a draft law, and we are not going to vote for it. We must talk, what is accepted, which is absolutely not touched upon. We speak about everything much: from the freedom of speech to hell, but on that way, we don’t know why, we don’t come across with this draft law. Indeed, it will be right if we touch upon this draft law – what is suggested, and what we must do. …I’m sure that the Liberty radio station has absolutely nothing to do with this draft law, and I’ll substantiate, why. I must try to present substantiations, which define the word broadcast very distinctly in this law, but before that I would like to say about the following. Please, read carefully the law Rules of Procedure, here there is no wording if the National Assembly is the broadcaster or it broadcasts, etc. They speak about the broadcasting of the sessions, i.e. the sessions are broadcast live on Public TV radio. It means that not the National Assembly is the broadcaster, but the television, i.e. there is no problem with the wording “broadcaster” in our Rules of Procedure. Regarding ‘The Parliamentary Week,’ the broadcasting of the video recording of the sessions, we’ll touch upon that in summer, and now I propose all the factions to present their suggestions because there is merely an agreement to continue those broadcastings, but I’m sure that from September we must work according to the Rules of Procedure. Regarding this draft law, it’s very clearly written that the activity of other broadcasting organizations by using frequencies is banned without the consent of the Public TV Radio Company. It means: can the Public TV Radio Company allow other broadcasting organizations to work in its frequency. Consequently, the first question that we must answer is whether the Liberty radio station is a broadcasting organization or not. There is the wording “TV broadcasting”, and I think that in the case of this wording, when taking into account the wording of the TV and Radio broadcasting license, what means the wording ‘license’ and Article 47, which says that the license is the only legal basis, which allows to broadcast the TV radio programmes, i.e. the broadcaster is the organization implementing TV and radio broadcasting, and for being such an organization, according to Article 47, one must have a license, which does not have the Liberty radio station for radio broadcasting in Armenia. So, this wording has nothing to do with Liberty radio station. The problems connected with Liberty refer to Liberty and to the relations with Public TV and Radio Company, but not this clause of this article. The problem is one: has the Public TV and Radio Company the right to sell its air to other broadcasting organizations or not. I think it does not have because we divided the air into two parts: air delivered by contest and air provided without consent for the TV and Radio Company. The one, to whom the air is given, I think, it has no right to do with these clauses in a way, as it wishes, therefore, I fully agree that withdrawing this word-combination from here has no connection with the freedom of speech and human rights, right on the contrary, the private companies can have such opportunity, but not the Public TV Company. I think, yes, we must to limit this right of the Public TV Company, which does not emanate from its function and its rights. I call on our colleagues not to have artificial problems inside the National Assembly. I’m thankful Zharangutyun for the active work, but here we don’t have that problem, and we don’t need to put senseless stamp on the parliament. Here we work together, we are ready to work in any issue. This package has no connection with Liberty radio station. I would like to underscore that the Liberty radio station is not a broadcasting organization. And me being convinced that the law has no connection with Liberty radio station and not with any organization not having license and they will vote for it.”

Mr. Vardan Khachatryan, Minister of Finance and Economy, presented for debate in the first reading the draft law on Making Amendments and Addenda to RA Law on RA 2007 State Budget. The debate of the draft law will continue at the NA special session – on June 29 from 11a.m.