An extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly was convened on March 17 on the initiative of the MPs with two agenda issues: the draft law on Making Amendments and Addenda to the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations and the draft resolution of the National Assembly on adopting it in two readings. The draft resolution was adopted by voting.
As the President of the National Assembly Mr. Tigran Torosyan presented, more than 60 MPs 
from the 4 factions of the parliament, excluding the Heritage faction, authorized the presented bill.
Mr. Rafik Petrosyan presented it. As he assured, the initiative of reviewing the law in function, is conditioned by the necessity of amending the not clear legislative norms, evident in the result of the events of March 1st
. While developing the law the MPs were guided by articles 11 and 18 of the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms by which certain restrictions are stipulated. Mr. Rafik Petrosyan emphasized that the experience of the European countries was taken into consideration. The draft tends to prevent possible encroachments towards the rights of other persons while applying the constitutional right. In particular, it says that the authorized body can prohibit the mass public events if there are reliable data that they are directed to violent overthrow of the constitutional order, rousing national, racial, religious hatred, propagating violence or war, or can lead to the infringement of the state security, public order, damaging the health of the society and morale, violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of the others. Later in the draft law presented for the second reading, by the proposal of Mr. Tigran Torosyan, President of the National Assembly, were added the cases, which cause disorders and crimes. The data, according to the draft law, will be considered authentic, if the police or the national security service have presented official conclusion on them. The authors propose to add a new part, according to which, the authorized body can prohibit the conduct of the event, if the
public actions have turned into mass disorders which have caused victims until circumstances of a crime and the persons who have committed crime are revealed. According to the proposals of the MPs of ARF faction Mr. Vahan Hovhannesyan and Mr. Artsvik Minasyan, in the final version of the draft in this part was added that the event will be prohibited if all the other means of prevention are exhausted.
In their speeches the MPs expressed concern that it was not clear who the norm concerns and in what terms. It was offered to remove from the law the provision on not presenting notification in case of turning the non-mass event into spontaneous mass public event. That is, mass public event can be carried out only after inquiring about it to the authorized body in written form. The terms of the notification by the organizers on forthcoming mass event are reviewed too: 5 days are defined instead of three. And 72 hours will be given to the authorized body for the discussion of the notification. By the law in force it carries out the next day after the reception of the notification.
Some deputies in their speeches characterized the offered draft law as "repressive" or "situational," saying that 
the created situation should be smoothed through political means. Somebody expressed a view that through these events they were trying to abolish the consequences of the problem, forgetting the original reason - existing discontent and mistrust of the certain layer of the society. Some of the deputies have supported this initiative; others have found it not the best way of solving the internal political problems.
Three factions presented views on the issue.
The Heritage faction is against this amendment and proposed the authors to take it away. Mrs. Larisa Adaverdyan annouced about this. She began her speech with an address to the well-known principles of international rights. According to her, the proposed restrictions contradict them.
Mr. Aram Safaryan, on behalf of the PAP faction presented their endorsement on the issue, noting that they are for solving the problems on the political plane. The faction is ready to join any step directed to social agreement, to promote the dialogue. According to the secretary of the faction, to be trustworthy for people will be their task.
By presenting the endorsement of the RPA faction Mr. Mkrtich Minasyan said that the last events made clear that the issue needed to have legal and political regulation. According to the MP, this legislative initiative is for the events of March 1st never to be repeated in our country. Taking into consideration that there was a wording in the amendments, according to which the event can be prohibited, caused by the conclusion, the member of the faction did not agree with the assessments that the restrictions are enlarged.
In his extraordinary speech Mr. Tigran Torosyan, President of the National Assembly, touched upon the views, sounded over the issue, in particular, the examination and background of the law in force, noting: “It is not moral that people bring old papers and read here. If there is so much will to testify PACE resolutions, bring and read the January resolution of 2007, this is for the first, bring and read the last resolution of the Venice Commission and, of course, the one of ODIHR. Moreover, when the law was completed, it was considered one of the best in the CE member 
countries and on that very base the PACE invited persons from Armenia to a number of events for presenting that law. Simply it is not moral to try to lead people to misunderstanding in such a situation. I am more than convinced that if not all those who make speeches some do it deliberately. As the evident facts, that people unfortunately have the chance to see on TV, they try to distort the truth. The same, the events taken place near the Embassy of France, or it was not there where the infuriated crowd chased just a policeman and then cruelly beat him and was not there that during the day they burnt the police car. Or were they peaceful demonstrators and just patting on the back of that poor policeman? No need of passing all the borders today at least in such a situation and try to be a defender of human rights here, wrongly violating elementary rights, the right of morality, that has everyone and is ready to display towards everyone. It is said: solidarity, discontent, reforms and dialogue … Certainly, solidarity, reforms and dialogue - no other opinion can be here and is this draft about it? Certainly, it is necessary and should be done. I suggest: if there are parliamentary political forces, who desire to have a debate in this direction and have proposals, - please, on March 24, at 3 p.m. we can gather and discuss with the representatives of the factions, and see what we have to do. It is already much spoken about the things to be done, but this draft is not about it because we faced two problems on March 1st
, before and after it. But before passing to that I want to say about the following. I think it is not fair always to complain. Why? Of course, there is discontent, let no one doubt, there will be always discontent. It is so. But if that discontent led to human victims, hundreds of wounded and why it was not leading to such things a year, two years or five years ago? When the discontent was much stronger and there were much more occasions for discontent. Yes, we are to see this discontent and the reasons of this discontent should be revealed and eradicated unequivocally. I think it is not right to explain the events of March 1st
just by discontents. Certainly, there were people, who have gone there for discontent or for other reasons but if one cannot see that there were also people capable of provocations, committed crimes as a result of which 8 persons died and 200 wounded, it will be just hypocrisy. Not to see separation of the people gathered there is the same hypocrisy, as well as to consider all of them criminals. It is necessary to be fair and assess everything correctly for it not to be repeated. We had two processes - political and criminal. What they offer here is just directed to the solution of the criminal problem no more.
I think it is easy to notice, that it only helps to more clarify the law in force, but not to differentiate it, to present everything as discontent is simply to call for tolerance and dialogue, which is completely unfair. 
No one has the right to let anyone to shed even a drop of blood tomorrow, this is what the proposal is directed to, nothing else. A drop of blood is more than hundreds of assemblies, and do not talk about a life of a person. Do not forget that seven from eight were the lives of those participants that our people lost. And no one has the right to let it to be repeated once again in Armenia. The proposal is directed to that, to nothing else. Of course, the political processes should have their procedure though it is evident who respond the tolerance and dialogue; there is no need those words to be speculated. A concrete step should be taken. Who wanted to respond the step directed to tolerance? No one. All were made those proposals. I do not agree with the very view that it is an adequate attitude to possible assemblies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the assembllies but with those results that we didn’t expect. These proposals are directed to be away of such results, nothing more.
Now about the examination of the law: if this law is adopted it will be translated after a day or two and will be sent for examination. Naturally, it was not possible within these few hours.Such as the law in force was sent for examination several times. We invited some experts and worked with them for hours and for days.Nobody is going to do anything secretly. I assure you, that it will be sent for examination and together with the experts the issues will be seriously debated. As to this draft law I completely agree with Mr. Minasyan: the first paragraph of the first part that is described here is already present in the law, only a thing is done: let us get the assessment from the professional structures and on the basis of these assessments let the mayor decide whether there are serious problems or not and only then to make a decision. The decision can be made without that conclusion within the framework of the law in force. Now which is better - to receive the conclusion on the basis of professional opinion or not? And time is needed for the reception of this conclusion. The term is determined as two days. Within those two days the information should be presented. Two days, which is a general term for solving such issues in numerous member countries of the Council of Europe. Open the laws and read them. We are continuously speaking about international law, but everything is mixed up. It is necessary to be a little bit familiar with the problem and only then to forward questions. They say there was a mechanism. Yes there was. I also consider that there was. And just the very first day, when there were illegal assemblies conducted, the police should have stopped those assemblies. Certainly, but I am sure these very persons, who say that it was present in the very law and let the very mechanism to be applied they should ‘make different speeches’ from here. This is the reality.
Can this draft law be amended? I believe yes.The first paragraph, which is nearly completely repeated, except the words “reliable data” of the law in force, after the words “can result” I propose to add “disorders and crimes.” Thus in the given wording restrictions of the convention will be completed, and an opportunity will be created for the 6th clause to be applied in extreme cases. The first two paragraphs will also enable to disclose similar problems, if there are, and solve the problem by prohibition. I think it is not only formal for reflecting the provisions of the convention, but an opportunity allowing the first mechanism to be applied practically, which is present in our law without conclusions.
They say what would the organizers do if the spontaneous 
assemblies turn to mass assemblies? There are organizers only during mass, public events, and what should they do, is distinctly written in the law. They should present a notification, with all the consequences following it: the law defines what should be done after presentation of the notification. First of all, the notification is directed to the participants’ security. Certainly, it is also directed to the citizens’ security not participating in those events. They say 350.000 votes are given, and what about the others? Is it possible to gather 350.000 votes and wish to do things? Is it democracy?
Summarizing, I should say the following: I am confident, that all the proposals which will help to improve this draft law, and not to allow such tragic events to be repeated in our country, will be taken into consideration, I think.”
After adopting the issue through the first reading, Mr. Rafik Petrosyan, co-author of the draft law, presented the final version to be fully adopted. The proposals of the MPs of Heritage faction were not reflected in the draft law. Mrs. Larisa Alaverdyan, taking floor on behalf of the faction, cited from the Constitution and the concept of the national security, where the human rights and their protection are recognized as a superior value or an inseparable part of the national security. Based on the proposal of the deputy Mr. Artak Davtyan, the law will come into force the next day after the official publication - instead of the tenth-day stipulated in the initial variant.
As a result of voting the draft law was adopted by correlation of 90 for and 6 against.
Covering the agenda, the extraordinary sitting finished its work.
