One of the most important recommendations in the 2014 concept of Constitutional reforms was transition from the three level judiciary system to the two level system, which was planned to be carried out through introduction of the juror’s institute.
Advocate Anna Mezhlumyan is against the introduction of this institution. She believes that it will not be operational in our country. “We are a small country, and I do not find suitable introduction of the Jurors’ institute. Our population is based on friendly relations and can easily establish contacts with the members of jury. And the latter led by emotions or friendly relations shall not be able to take adequate decisions,” the advocate said.
Still the advocate said that the introduction of the institute will have its positive and negative sides. “Taking the authority to recognize a person guilty of innocent from the judge will have its good and bad sides. In some cases, the court cannot be able to justify them or based on the fact of their previous conviction the punishment will be non adequate. And, in case of jurors’ acquittal, the court has no alternative. On the other hand there is another fact as well. It is the jurors may take a wrong decision if they are led by it. It is possible that the culprit is justified and later commits a more serious crime. In this case, relatives and friends will become more active. I would like the jury had better knowledge of laws so that they are able to make the correct decisions, and the final opinion would be more reasonable,” Ms Mezhlumyan noted.
Notably the jurors’ court reviews sever criminal cases as well. In some countries, the jury’s decision is taken only when it passes unanimously. The decision adopted by a majority vote in Russia. However, in all cases, the punishment decision is always made by a judge, except for in the Federal Court that functions in the United States of America.