Constitutional Court worked 'considerably well' over the past period, says former member

12:02 • 13.03.20

Law

No matter the allegations which Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan makes time and again in an attempt to find fault with the Constitutional Court, that institution has done a great deal of job over the past period to address the problems in Armenia, says a former member.

In an interview with Tert.am, Valery Poghosyan questioned the expediency of the April 5 referendum, considering the proposed call for the early retirement of judges a real pressure upon the high court.

“What interests me is whether or not the Constitution is really functional. Why am I asking the question? Because if the Constitution is functional indeed, no official practically has the right to express a negative or positive opinion about the judiciary. It is treated as a pressure upon a court, a practice which is prohibited under the Constitution,” he said.

Asked to comment on the current authorities’ repeated complaints that the Constitutional Court has never enjoyed independence (also Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently said that the CC members were the authorities’ puppet dolls under both first President Levon Ter-Petrosyan, and his successors, Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan), Poghosyan didn’t agree to the allegation.

The Constitution is first of all an instrument which restricts authority, the former judge added. “This is the task of the Constitutional Court. Otherwise, it does not make any sense at all to create something of the kind. All the arguments cited today i.e. – a constitutional crisis etc., address virtually the effective Constitution, not the Constitutional Court.”

Poghosyan said he isn’t inclined to the idea that the authorities do not want an independent high judicial body. “Have we really thought of the consequences? Seven new judges, who will be replaced in 12 years’ time, are going to be elected, which is to say the incumbent authorities themselves will again embark on their own court’s formation. That’s not permissible,” he said, noting that the independence of courts implies first of all independence from other branches of power.

According to Poghosyan, the issue on the agenda of the April 5 referendum is a “non-existant transitional provision” referring only to a specific period.

“It is valid until the effective date. Additionally, the transitional provisions contain clauses of the kind also for government agencies. Do all of them appear to be loyal authorities now, with the Constitutional Court being the exception? What is the logic? Who is supposed to answer that question? If they wanted a change through a referendum, they should have substituted the transitional provision itself - rather than the clause which had taken effect afterwards. Judges, for example, are elected for 12 years, with the [CC] chair having a six-year tenure; they could have changed that provision instead of a non-existant one. It is a transitional provision just by its virtue of establishing specific timeframes,” he explained.

news.view.author Betghehem Arabyan