“The course of judicial reforms in post-revolutionary and post-election Armenia” expert discussion took place on November 2, 2021 in Yerevan. The discussion was organized by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia with support of the Partnership for Open Society Initiative. The professional discussion on transitional justice, issues of integrity and legal options for conducting vetting took place with participation of more than fifty stakeholders.
Members of the National Assembly of Republic of Armenia, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, members of Supreme Judicial Council, representatives of the Corruption Prevention Committee, the Prosecutor General’s office, international organizations and accredited embassies in Armenia, civil society organizations, as well as legal scholars, representatives of law firms and public figures participated in the discussion.
Mr. Karen Andreasyan, the Minister of Justice, conditioned such multilateral representation by the actuality of the topic on vetting and judicial reforms and emphasized that the goal of the meeting is to finally put an end to the discussion lasting about three years on “when and how vetting will be conducted in Armenia”.
“A group of specialists finds that the present Constitution allows implementing vetting through a separate law, a separate mechanism, while another group thinks that it is impossible to implement vetting based on the current Constitution. Today we are also going to discuss the possibilities for allowing a longer period for implementation of transitional justice and verifying the integrity of the judges”, said Mr. Karen Andreasyan. He said he was hopeful to get the answers to these questions while summarizing the discussion in order to finally inform the public if the vetting will take place before or after the Constitutional reforms. In this context, the Minister of Justice stressed that the vetting has already begun due to the absolutely objective work of the present staff of Supreme Judicial Council. “I continue believing that the vetting process has started; it is underway, we see its results day-by-day, but we have to understand jointly if we need a separate legislative mechanism to implement vetting”, concluded Mr. Karen Andreasyan.
Mr. Gagik Jhangiryan, the acting Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council (hereinafter, SJC), expressed his gratification with the assessment for the activities of the Council and stressed that SJC envisions its function in not only imposing or not imposing disciplinary measures against concrete judges but wishes to make decisions which will have preventive significance for possible violations in future. “In that regard, I think our decisions are to an extent leaning towards case law logic, if I can use that word”, emphasized Mr. Gagik Jhangiryan.
Mr. David Amiryan, the Deputy Director for Programs for the Open Society Foundation – Armenia, welcomed the participants on behalf of the Partnership for the Open Society Initiative and presented the viewpoints and approaches of a number of civil society organizations to judicial reforms in Armenia. “A number of civil society organizations, the majority of which is present here today, have visualized vetting as a tool which was to be part of a bigger philosophy – transitional justice. According to our vision, a truth and reconciliation commission was to be established concomitantly with the vetting, and an assessment of the past was bound to take place before or after that. The non-governmental organizations are not the ones to implement fine-tuning or vetting or provide an assessment of the past. They can support these processes, but in these processes the role of the civil society is to act as a counterbalance to those in power, i. e. not to allow these processes to take place or serve the needs of an individual or a separate political power. 
The civil society can be useful in these processes given its potential, experience and knowledge”, emphasized the deputy director of OSF-Armenia. Mr. David Amiryan attached high importance to the exchange of thoughts on judicial reforms with the government, the Ministry of Justice, civil society and representatives of professional community. “It is encouraging that the attitude of judicial system towards vetting process has also changed, and it is not regarded as a process against individuals, but a priority of public benefit which has to be supported by the judicial system. We, the civil society organizations, continue believing and hoping that our idealistic wishes and visions on this process will become a reality in a systemic way, and we will leave a judicial system for our generations which will never be questioned for justice implementation”, said Mr. David Amiryan.
During the professional discussion speeches were delivered by Ms. Mariam Galstyan, member of the Corruption Prevention Committee; Mr. Karen Amiryan, the deputy head of Department of Organization, Supervision and Legal Assistance of the Prosecutor General’s office; Mr. David Khachaturyan, a member of the Supreme Judicial Council of Republic of Armenia and Mr. Artur Sakunts, the Head of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly’s Vanadzor office on the following topics respectively: “Integrity check: achievements and improvement prospects”, “Study on Integrity in Prosecutor’s Office”, “Possible prospects of vetting implementation in the Republic of Armenia” and “Transitional Justice”.
Mr. Artur Sakunts, the Head of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly’s Vanadzor office mentioned that a number of civil society organizations assessed the pre-revolution situation as seizure of the country. “The process of seizure of the country was terminated by the revolution the core reason of which was the deficit of justice. The revolution took place because the voices of the people, whose rights were continuously and unpunishedly violated, were never heard. That is also why after a short period following the revolution, on 28 December 2018, a number of civil society organizations published the Concept of the reforms necessary to restore the Republic of Armenia (Republic of Armenia map). Our suggestion to the new government was at least to take into account these approaches”, mentioned the head of HCAV.
The strategy of judicial reforms assumed establishment of a fact-finding commission in Armenia back in first trimester of 2020; however, it has not been established till date. According to Mr. Arthur Sakunts, the voices of thousands of citizens whose rights have been violated and who have not spoken up due to fear should be heard. “Ultimately, who is going to implement transitional justice as an obligation of the state? There is no need for a working group, but there is a need for responsibility and accountably on the part of the government as to why it has not implemented the activities underlined in the strategy that has been endorsed by the government itself”, said the human rights activist.
Mr. Artur Sakunts reminded that a number of civil society organizations have stressed numerous times that the present Constitution provides assurances single-party ruling, underpins seizure of the state on constitutional level and whatever is done within its frames, will remain within the same logic. We have no right to waste this opportunity. The fact finding commission which we call commission of truth, has to be established as soon as possible. The establishment of the fact finding commission has a crucial significance for transitional justice. It is inadmissible to abandon this obligation”, said head of HCAV.
Three separate working groups on transitional justice, integrity issues and legal aspects of vetting have been formed during the professional discussion. When summarizing the group discussions, the following was suggested:
- The component of transitional justice should not be regarded as a separate thing, but a general one, concomitantly with vetting;
- >
Preparatory work should be carried out with the public in order to have an idea what mandate the truth commission should be granted to and what function it will have which will enable the commission to find cooperation opportunities with the public. - Not only judges, but also prosecutors and investigators should undergo integrity assessment and psychological tests.
- >
The opinion of the Anti-Corruption Committee when appointing a person to office should no more bear a consultative role. The culture for making reciprocal decisions between Constitutional bodies should be enhanced. - It is logical to conduct vetting within the scope of the present Constitution; however, planning for simultaneous amendments in the scope of constitutional reforms is not excluded either. In case of defining additional incompatibility conditions given the Constitution in force, it is possible to implement this process through establishing legal fundaments. It will become possible through creation of an independent state body.
The body has to have guarantees for independence, has to be established by the National Assembly, be comprised of lawyers, rights activists and civil society representatives who are trusted by the public. The Commission should, in reality, implement a universal verification procedure based on the criteria established by the law, provide consultations and submit those to SJC. Consideration of mediations should take place through an open door session with wide involvement of media, etc.
The full streaming of the discussion can be found through the following link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvzfov3lyyA