Larisa Alaverdyan has been the Human Rights Defender of Armenia (2004–2006) and a Member of Parliament (2007–2012).

Since 1991, she is the Executive Director of the Foundation of Against the Violation of Law NGO, which deals with protecting human rights; disclosing and returning hostages, prisoners of war, and missing persons; as well as providing them with legal, medical, psychological, and moral support.

According to Alaverdyan, when covering conflict the media has to be particularly careful when producing news stories about prisoners of war, since, by spreading unverified information, it might seriously harm them. 

Mrs. Alaverdyan, in your opinion, how does the Armenian media cover incidents connected to Armenian prisoners of war?

I am very dissatisfied with the media, connected to the case of Hakob Injighulyan. Without getting to heart of the problem, the media right away disseminated invectives in Hakob’s name and declared him to be a traitor. I personally called a few editorial offices and asked them to stop this absurdity. That which the media did was an unacceptable slip-up, which was worth a human life.

Being aware of Azerbaijan’s adopted policy, the [Armenian] media, first of all, should not have accepted and disseminated that video. Second of all, covering any subject matter, a journalist must know its domestic and international regulatory database. Article 13 of the Geneva Convention says that prisoners of war must be protected from “public curiosity”. In general, speaking about an individual you should be very discreet, whether he is a murderer proven in court or a prisoner of war. You must respect his dignity, speaking about the mistakes he made from a legal and moral perspective, but it shouldn’t be a journalist’s problem to insult him. 

In the cases of Mamikon Khojoyan and Arsen Khojoyan, the media had already learned a lesson from the mistake it made during [coverage of] Injighulyan’s case. 

In general, how do you assess the Armenian media’s coverage of the Karabakh conflict?

Unlike Azerbaijan’s [coverage], there is a diversity of opinion in our media regarding the Artsakh issue, including also its resolution. And though you can often come across amateur and unprofessional judgments, the diversity is very welcoming. 

Our media has different treatment toward Azerbaijan. There are news media that are very harsh toward Azerbaijan’s policies and its elite; in some news media, you can even come across irony, but, unlike Azerbaijan’s [media], we don’t have anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. 

Even if there are harsh [news] reports, they are in response to signals coming from Azerbaijan. Still, I find that the Armenian media’s reaction is more adequate and mild. 

In your opinion, can the media foster resolution to the conflict?

It’s not the media that has to do that — it’s not its function. The media’s role should not be overrated compared to politics. The media can only try to change the atmosphere in small groups or create an image that doesn’t correspond to the reality. But to have a palpable positive impact, the media has to do a vast amount of work and exert great efforts — that’s why I wouldn’t pin illusive hopes on the media. 

Interview conducted by Anna Barseghyan.