Local daily Hraparak and Armenia’s second president Robert Kocharian, after a trial that lasted nearly eight months, recently settled in court. According to the conditions of the settlement reached in a Yerevan administrative court, Hraparak is obliged to publish a retraction and Robert Kocharian is to refuse the 6 million AMD (about $15,426 USD) in compensation for information in an article published in the paper on Feb. 12, 2011.

Hraparak editor Armine Ohanyan is pleased with the decision: “Coming to an agreement satisfies us, because it’s easier to settle than pay several million drams for no reason. In the end, we weren’t that confident in the judicial system — that it would completely reject the demand and that victory would be ours. In this sense, I think, we got out of this judicial process with the least amount of losses.”

In Ohanyan’s opinion, it’s possible that the Constitutional Court ruling on the terms and conditions of compensation for harm caused to honor, dignity and business reputation (in the RA Civil Code Article 1087.1) played a role in the settlement. The civil code amendment stipulates that when examining such cases in court, it’s necessary to apply non-material forms of compensation — for example, an apology or retraction — and financial compensation only afterwards if the non-material is deemed insufficient for compensating the harm caused.

Attorney Sargis Grigoryan, representing Kocharian’s interests in this case, says that the basis for the settlement agreement is the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the civil code amendment.

“In any case, the settlement agreement and the ruling that established it directly cites the Nov. 15 Constitutional Court ruling — particularly those principles and standards that the Constitutional Court was trying to put forth or establish as judicial practice in the Republic of Armenia,” he said. 

One day after the settlement between Hraparak and Robert Kocharian, Feb. 16, the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Armenia v. Public Television of Armenia (H1) took place in the same court. However, it was postponed since the attorneys are preparing text for the settlement to present to the parties in the case. 

According to H1 attorney Armen Baghdasaryan, the offer to settle came long ago — ahead of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. 

“When there was an application submitted to the Constitutional Court, we asked that the trial be suspended until we see what decision [the Constitutional Court] makes. After that the text for the settlement agreement was discussed and wasn’t quite completed for us to say whether it had an impact or not. In any case, it was a clarification for all and it was a unique approach to Article 1087.1, which, of course, was interesting to everyone.”

Anna Aloyan, an expert with the Yerevan-based Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, doesn’t rule out the possibility of the Constitutional Court’s ruling having an impact on the move toward reaching settlement.

“Perhaps it can be tied with the Constitutional Court ruling because it had some influence also on other lawsuits. There were plaintiffs who withdrew their lawsuits and made amendments particularly in the part about financial compensation. Now, if Kocharian is also refusing financial compensation, it’s possible that there’s a connection,” she says.

Aloyan adds that conditioned by this decision, there’s an attempt to resolve current lawsuits against news outlets outside the court as much as possible and after settling, to at least quash the cases.

Though this lawsuit against Hraparak ended in a settlement, the paper is still facing two more lawsuits. One is Zinvor Association of NGOs chair Margarita Khachatryan’s lawsuit; the other, attorney Artur Grigoryan’s lawsuit for comments left by readers on the paper’s website. 

Nvard Hovhannisyan