When the authorities lie or compromise, this manifests both inside and outside, why not with regards to the Venice Commission

Is lying, cheating or compromising a character or a sporadic behavior? We believe it is a diagnosis, very typical of the new authorities of Armenia, which manifests both inside and outside, including the relations with the Venice Commission.

Many know that the Armenian authorities had recently applied to the Venice Commission asking them three questions with respect to the Constitutional Court. One would think they had changed their mind, understood that making constitutional amendments without the Commission’s opinion might lead to undesirable consequences and reaction. But it turned out they are cheating again: they are applying to the Commission with one hand whereas with the other hand they are trying to smuggle in their desires solution, involving the Commission in the show they throw.

Thus:

In reply to the question on when would the draft law on terminating the powers of the Constitutional judges put to circulation in the NA, the Chair of the NA Standing Commission on State and Legal affairs V. Vardanyan said very soon. Replying to the question on whether they would wait for the VC opinion to circulate the draft law, he answered that everything should not be made conditional on the VC, but that their opinion would be interesting to see from the professional viewpoint.

In other words, the impression is that the experts of the Commission are sitting idly, waiting for the Armenian authorities to ask them questions, just to satisfy a professional interest. MP N. Baghdasaryan noted that regardless of the VC opinion, the NA will take that initiative. He says that in small matters, such as correct use of terminology, they might listen to the VC.

And the supporters of Justice Vahe Grigoryan (such as Lusine Hakobyan) say that it was wrong to address the VC, as the connections play a big role in making the decisions in that body.

Is such disrespect towards international partners new? It turns out it is not.

1. Pashinyan had previously noted that during his visit to Germany he had drawn the attention of European partners to the fact that the whole process, where they were dealing with an abuse of rights, had occurred under the eyes of the VC. He believed the Commission had to answer some questions, including also to some of their European partners.

MP from the ruling My Step alliance Vahagn Hovakimyan had noted that the personal statements of the President of the VC should not be made identical to the VC. President Buquicchio had received an expensive present from the former President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan, a decoration studded with expensive diamonds. He expresses his opinion through his statements which they take note of, but the important is the development of the State.

Justice V. Grigoryan had previously qualified the opinion of the VC as moral idle talk with no legal and political value, having a secondary significance. He had also noted he had doubts about the impartiality of some VC officials. The VC has distorted the electoral law in Armenia, it has kept the effective means of combatting electoral fraud out of reach, as well as has contributed to the perpetuation of the electoral fraud. The VC bears no responsibility for its omissions and what is its advice worth I  that case? Hrayr Tovmasyan’s opinion and positions have more weight. The Constitutional Court crisis and its solution are exclusively matters pertaining g to the sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia. The VC is interfering with internal political affairs. They may be interested in the opinions of international partners only when they ask for it.

MP from the ruling My Step alliance N. Baghdasaryan says Mr. Buquicchio is not the subject whose opinion should be considered. His word is interference and their faction needs to clarify this with him. G. Buquicchio is interested, biased and linked with the previous authorities.

We find it important to note that such attitude was displayed towards the VC also when the statements by the Commission were distorted and interpreted very specifically, without listening to the urges of the Commission.

This is the overall image: lie to the internal audience and the international partners, and why not, compromise them as well.

In the light of all this, we believe that the International structures, when getting any information from these authorities, must have reservations, bearing in mind the defamation voiced in their respect, as well as show precaution in order not to legalize illegal actions with their formal participation.

ROBERT HAYRAPETYAN