A “Hayots Ashkhar” editorial discusses Tigran Torosian’s resignation as parliament speaker and raises a number of questions: “What irreconcilable differences is he talking about? When did these differences over ‘issues pertaining to political life’ emerge? What are these issues? Why did Torosian keep silent on them until that day?”
“But maybe these ‘irreconcilable differences’ emerged only after the Republican Party (HHK) decided to nominate another party figure for the post of parliament speaker?” the daily writes.
“168 Zham” gives its own perspective on the same subject.
“Tigran Torosian may be the first one to quit the HHK, but it is not ruled out that he is not the last one,” the paper writes. “There is no smoke without fire. Experience shows that the HHK has become too big a party for Armenia’s conditions. But there aren’t that many posts in the state.”
“Haykakan Zhamanak” writes on the quick appointment of Arman Mkrtumian as new Chairman of the Court of Cassation after the resignation of Hovannes Manukian: “It is difficult to imagine a speedier appointment.”
The pro-opposition daily says quoting its sources close to the judiciary that clouds over Manukian’s job accumulated still in the middle of March. “When the fate of the criminal cases related to the March 1 unrest were being discussed at the presidential palace, Manukian inadvertently said that the case required a political solution, since it was a political case, and that sending them to courts might have unpredictable consequences and shatter Armenia’s whole judiciary system.”
“Aravot” writes that the criminal case against former foreign minister and manager of Levon Ter-Petrosian’s presidential election campaign Alexander Arzumanian was sent to court with “proofreading” of its volume. Reminding that “when charges were brought against Arzumanian in connection with the March 1 events, the criminal case against him was merged into one proceeding with another case on money laundering charges brought against Arzumanian still on May 10, 2007, the paper informs its readers: “But before the case was sent to court, it was decided again to separate this charge with the motivation that the investigation into this part is still ongoing.”
“A renewed sense of optimism seems to have shrouded the Karabakh settlement process in the recent period, especially after Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Yerevan,” writes “Zhamanak Yerevan”. “The impression is that until now Gul knew how to settle the Karabakh problem but did not tell anyone so as not to come to Armenia ‘empty-handed’. Indeed, an original step. He comes as a guest, for the first time, to bring not chocolate or a bottle of brandy, but a variant of conflict settlement. At least it is difficult to give another explanation to the fact that after Gul’s brief visit to Armenia there is more discussion of the Karabakh conflict settlement than Armenian-Turkish relations proper.”