“Citizen’s Decision” Social Democratic Party has issued a statement on the processes taking place around the Constitutional Court, which reads:

“By declaring Armenia a republic, the people have fixed their will to live by the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It was meant to have a constitution that reflected human rights and the mechanisms for protecting them. Today, it can be stated that not only were human rights and democracy not protected, but also the institutions created to uphold those principles systematically violated them.

The seizure of the state system and widespread and continuous violations of human rights would not have been possible without the active role of the Constitutional Court. That high court, which had the power and obligation to prevent such encroachments, has always close eyes on outrageous election fraud and various episodes of constitutional failure in response to complaints from citizens seeking justice. So the CC, as an institute, has bankrupted itself.

The way to return to the declared principles of the rule of law and democracy is impossible to go along with the people who have formed such an institution. They have proven their inability to uphold the aims set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and in addition always have resignedly followed how these aims were viciously violated. They have to leave.

We have repeatedly stated that the current constitution cannot properly regulate public relations and will regularly cause political crises. The fact that the Constitution is falsified will serve as a basis for different political actors to wipe their feet in on it one case and in another to refer to it as a “holy shrine.” The chosen way of dismissing members of the Constitutional Court is, of course, problematic from the point of view of the letter of the law. A situation has arisen when the members of the same Constitutional Court must decide themselves on their departure. Moreover, by strictly adhering to the letter of the law, the constitutionalist must in all cases apply to the same institution for permission to amend. It should appeal to people whose tacit consent has repeatedly violated their own rights. And we will have to deal with this problem regularly, when it comes to other constitutional bodies that were also formed in the past and served the previous regime. This is the prospect of maintaining formal legality.

There is, of course, a reasonable range of restrictions by which the constitution restrains itself and the bodies it has formed, but it cannot become its own captive in that cell of law.

In view of the foregoing we declare that:

• In the current situation, the blame of the political power that has taken over the country as a result of revolutionary processes is high. Instead of developing and implementing rules that are in line with the new political situation, it has recognized the rules of the old game stipulated by the falsified constitution as a legitimate mechanism for regulating state-political relations.
• Allowing violations of procedures as the only way to accomplish the constitutional goals, the governing body bears full political responsibility for forming a Constitutional Court whose authority among the public is no longer in doubt.
• This process should be immediately followed by and a genuinely participatory process of drafting and adopting a new constitution be carried out consistently. Without it, the changes will not fix public relations with new quality and logic, but the former relationships will undergo partial correction, suspending the risk of new crises throughout the entire application of constitution.
• Referendum is an important and key tool for direct democracy. However, it would be inadmissible to use this mechanism in one case for its own political calculations and in the other case, based on such calculations would prevent its application.
• It is theoretically possible have a court in line with the constitutionalist’s will through Referendum, but only if the ruling force stops its inconsistent, dual standards, changing principles, and maintains working style that is suitable at the given moment.
• We strongly condemn the Prime Minister’s view, which he voiced from the NA podium, that all the forces supporting the ruling referendum are loyal, and those who oppose them are traitors.”