“Hayots Ashkhar” believes that the number of people arrested as part of the ongoing government crackdown on the opposition is disproportionately high. “To tell the truth, there could have been fewer [opposition] detainees,” writes the pro-government paper. “However, the concept of reasonable defensive self-sufficience is alien to our democracy by definition. In the Armenian state there is more respect for unreasonable excesses. It is the main organizer of the failed coup and the person responsible for the deaths of ten people, [Levon] Ter-Petrosian, as well as several of his fierce activists who could and should have been arrested in the first instance. The result would have been much bigger.”
“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” reports on Ter-Petrosian supporters’ Thursday march to the genocide memorial in Yerevan. The opposition paper says the fact that thousands of them managed to gather in the city center proved right those who hoped that “April 24 will mark the beginning of a new upsurge in the popular struggle for freedom and justice.” “Levon Ter-Petrosian and other leaders of the popular movement joined the massive march and ensured the start of the new upsurge,” it says.
“Hayastani Hanrapetutyun” strongly disapproves of the Ter-Petrosian-led opposition’s decision to rally supporters on a day that marked the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. “It turns out that a group are impervious to the meaning of April 24,” writes the government paper. “They simply wanted to demonstratively clamor that the opposition is going to Tsitsernakabert, that, as was pointed out by some media, Levon Ter-Petrosian is leading the opposition march. Isn’t the opposition Armenian? Doesn’t it differentiate between a visit to Tsitsernakabert and a pre-election march?” The paper points out that the crowd chanted political slogans as it marched to the genocide memorial and walked back to the city center. “Did they forget where their leader is originally from and why his parents ended up in Aleppo?”
“Aravot” defends the Armenian Foreign Ministry officials who condemned the conduct of the February presidential election and lost their jobs as a result. The paper dismisses as “superficial” former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian’s explanation that the dissenting diplomats did so because of their personal connections with or sympathy for Ter-Petrosian. It praises the diplomats as “people truly loyal to the state.”