Anna Margaryan: During the nomination as a member of SJC at the National Assembly, I have not given any pleasant or unpleasant answers to someone, but I have presented my vision

Tert.am spoke with Anna Margaryan, a lawyer nominated but not elected for a SJC member by “My Step” faction on the reasons for not being elected as a member of the SJC and a number of other issues

- Ms. Margaryan, is it true that several times you have refused to become a member of SJC and only after long negotiations you agreed?

- Yes, there have been suggestions before, it is an objective truth, at first I did not agree and then agreed. But this is not worth focusing on, this will not change anything. The important thing is to select and conduct the right policy at the moment.

- Many options have been circulated why the majority did choose your candidacy, but did not elect you. The answers you gave them, they didn’t like. The parliament is not serious and so, why do you think why did they nominate you but not vote for you?

- I cannot put an end to any version. In order to answer this question, I have to have full information and I do not know from whom to get it right now. I have a fact, and the fact is that 85 MPs took part in the voting, and I received 66 votes in the voting results. There was no contradiction with the answers, no disagreement, at least not loud. Naturally, I cannot make judgments and I'm not going to do that.

If the deputy voted against, guided by his inner conviction, I would only respect such MP. He has found that my views and visions are different. In other respects, if they are conditioned by subjective, personal, group problems, and refers to the interests of individual groups or individuals over public, state interests, it is already the voter's issue. To make judgments about who did what, when did what, in what conditions he did that thing, frankly, does not interest me.

-Wasn’t the approach of the Parliament unserious?

- I will not say anything serious, I will not give such an assessment. I will just say if I go there again, then that will not be serious.

-Do you regret that you have given unpleasant answers to the questions of authorities?

- No, never. I have not given any pleasant or unpleasant answers to someone, I have presented my vision. At that moment and later I did not even think that someone liked it or did not.

-Your point of view on blocking the courts seemed to be decisive for the voting.

- I have just said one thing that I do not share the approach that has been. That is, closing the courts did not consider for me an acceptable option for the solution of the issue, but people are different and have different approaches, different views. I'm not concentrating on this, and I do not think the problem has been the answers, someone's being pleasant or unpleasant. Again I say, I have presented my vision, my approach, never expecting someone to like it or not. The problem is that if people share my point of view, agree with it, they will vote, do not share, disagree, than they vote against.

- Do you think that people voted as a result of their own opinion?

- I cannot answer that question. Only the person who voted has an answer to that question. I am a lawyer and I am used to objectively evaluate the facts, I can make assumptions about the subject, which I will not do now.