ECHR 'has not rejected motion' to suspend constitutional changes in Armenia, lawyer insists

The reports that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected the Applicants' request for suspending the constitutional changes in Armenia are absolutely untrue, according to Siranuysh Sahakyan, a representative for Armenia at the Strasbourg court.

In a statement released earlier today, the lawyer says that the recently adopted decision deals with specific violations of individuals' rights "rather than legislative developments in a specific country."

Sahakyan insists that the application submitted by the chair and three judges of the Constitutional Court is now under consideration, with the European court being strongly committed to urgent procedures, "considering the nature of the violations and the importance of the questions raised".

"Based on the information submitted on June 26, a range of questions were directed to the Government as early as on July 2. Subject to the established procedures, the Court keeps on offering the sides specific timeframes for submitting their positions. To that end, the Court has already established a new timeframe, i.e. - until August 28 of this year, which by definition testifies to the attention to the importance of the case," reads her statement.

According to Sahakyan, the issue raised before the Court dealt with applying an interim measure to prevent the "ongoing violations of the Applicants' rights" and to secure the implementation of the upcoming judgment. 

The lawyer notes that the possible application of the measure is on a policy domain enjoying a broad discretionary authority, with the scope of the beneficiaries extending from individual applicants to the ECHR to vest the latter with the power to implement the judgments.

Meantime Sahakyan admits that under conditions of a real opportunity to upgrade the judiciary's protection to a new level within the European family, the Court opted for satisfying itself with the role of a subject recognizing the state's responsibility and ensuring the reparation and reinstatement of a violated right (by self-restricting the domain of its preventive function).