Karabakh truce was ‘just a declarative statement' with no legal value, says former high court official

The Russia-brokered truce on Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) was a declaraative document with no legally binding value, a former senior staffer of the Constitutional Court said today, attributing Armenia’s defeat in the recent war to the earlier campaign against former high court officials.

“Nobody could have thought that the resolution of the Artsakh issue would be reflected in the form of the simplest document having no legal status. If it is expected to be an international treaty (which it is supposed by definitiation), it must undergo a ratification process. And to achieve the National Assembly’s ratification of an international treaty, the Constitutional Court must give its positive conclusion in line with its provisions and the Constitution of Armenia. I am confident the campaign against the Constitutional Courrrt – and the entire anti-constitutional and anti-legal campgin against the country’s key institutional structure - was part of the monstrous program which we eye-witnessed in autumn,” Ara Ghazaryan, an ex-chief of staff at the Constitutional Court’s staff, told reporters.

He also commented upon third President Serzh Sargsyan recent interview addressing the Armenian authorities' political, military and diplomatic failures that led to an eventual defeat. 

Ghazaryan especially highlighted the significance of the remarks as statements by a high-ranking political figure who was in charge of the armed forces for a decade and held senior posts at the National Security Service, the Interior Ministry and the Minsitry of Defense.

“Serzh Sargsyan gave his evaluations not only politically but also professionally as that man was a participant and a commander of the Artsakh war, who virtually possesseed comprehensive information on the frontline defense positions, the structure of the armed forces, the personal features of commanders and their capacities. And his wrap-up came to reveal the grossest mistakes that proved painfully crucial,” he added.

Ghazaryan pointed out to a “direct and immediate connection” between the crackdown on members and judges of the Constitutional Court and the war in Artsakh. “One thing is obvious: had we had the former staff of the Constitutional Court, where exlusively professional judges officiated, no document with a political – let alone self-defeating – content could have possibly received approval, especially with a content running counter to the Constitution,” he added.

Asked why the incument prime minsiter maintains his hold on power three months after the signing of the capitulation act, Ghazaryan pointed out two two essential factors: physical protection offered by the law enforcement, defense and national security agencies and society’s “still persisting support”.

“He understands the significance of the decisions made by himself – as well as their consequences – as he had signed the document much earlier than the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan. They signed the document in front of TV monitoris; hence he obviously had previously requested [permission to] sign the deal separately to later be able to hide. So the sides met him half-way,” Ghazaryan said.