Every citizen saying yes or no to the RA new Constitution, must study thoroughly every word and word combination of the project before making a referendum. The RA Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan ensures.
He brings the following example: “I do not like the term political moderation; I would propose to replace it by political neutrality. The Ombudsman is not a politician, and should not have political views. In that sense, I have always wanted that the Ombudsman really should be politically neutral, but our proposal was not accepted”. Karen Andreasyan answered himself the following question that he had addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Reform “If the word has already been fixed in the draft, will it impede or not? In my opinion, no, as I consider that the word moderation has the same meaning as neutrality. Anyway, I do not see the implementation of the word, if one accepts that the Ombudsman is not suppressed, and then what is going to happen? I will maintain political neutrality, no matter some politicians will not like it.
In that respect he considers important the fact what laws are to be passed after constitutional amendments, if the public approves the new Constitution.
In the new draft Constitution Karen Andreasyan considers a dangerous point the definition that the Ombudsman cannot appeal to the Constitutional Court on the issues of the third chapter of the draft (social issues), at the same time stating that there are third subjects who will represent human rights in the court.
Besides, he mentioned that the draft has quite positive approaches. Anyway, he stated that the proposals of the Ombudsman and other stakeholders were not considered properly by the Commission.
