Mr. Jhangiryan’s statement is not objective, there is no draft and no concept, and it is an exclusively political statement. Lawyer Varazdat Harutyunyan said in a conversation with Iravaban.net, referring to the speech of the Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Gagik Jhangiryan a few days ago, where the latter expressed an opinion on the vetting of lawyers, saying, “I can say that the process of cleaning and purification should also refer to the advocates’ service, because, unfortunately, it is accepted in our country, for the most part, I do not want to offend anyone, but there are advocates who communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases very easily get recognition. In other words, this vetting must include the entire judicial system and all the bodies that serve and support it.”

Varazdat Harutyunyan mentioned that he had repeatedly stated that after the pressure on the courts and bringing the courts under the influence of the authorities, the next step will be the advocacy and the media.

“We see that these predictions are coming true. There are already certain draft laws on the media, which significantly restrict the freedom of the media, and now they are also trying to gradually move to advocacy,” he said.

The lawyer recalled that rumors were circulating that after the election of the President of the Chamber of Advocates, the authorities would launch a campaign against the Chamber of Advocates, depending on the election results.

“This announcement is the first step of that campaign. What does vetting of advocates mean? It is just an unpredictable, unprecedented phenomenon in a reasonable reality,” he said.

According to Varazdat Harutyunyan, the activity of advocacy is clearly regulated. There is the Law on Advocacy, there is the Chamber of Advocates, whose board has adopted a code of ethics, and the Board of the Chamber of Advocates conducts proceedings in cases of numerous disciplinary violations, prosecuting the advocates who violate the Code of Ethics.

“There is no need for any vetting in these processes, especially since it is not clear what is the so called vetting. A person makes a statement without opening the brackets, the authorities have a habit of making irresponsible statements, leaving many questions about this or that sphere of activity, thus damaging the activity of that sphere,” he said.

According to him, after Jhangiryan’s statement, they will start talking about advocacy, turning the society against the lawyers․ “Then they will say that these lawyers are the ones defending the former robbers, that’s why we have to do this or that. We have been witnessing this for 3 years, and the predictions that it will be the turn of advocacy have come true. But the authorities did not take into account that advocacy cannot be treated in the same way as other state institutions or specialists in the courts and other spheres,” Harutyunyan said, adding that advocates are mainly principled, with a high level of legal awareness, highly valuing their own mission and activities; individuals who understand their own behavior and the professional role of their own person in society

He supposes that in the context of the so-called vetting, an attempt will be made to abolish the monopoly status of the Chamber of Advocates, so that there will be different unions.

“It will be the first step to divide the advocates into different camps, divide so that to rule according to the principle. I am against the idea of ​​different unions, and if they are trying to advance that idea, especially now, it is clear that its sole purpose is to put pressure on advocates in the future with other tools as well. We will struggle, we will not allow the reckless attitude of the authorities towards us to continue,” Hovhannisyan said.

He noted that the so-called vetting of advocates is just ridiculous, and advocacy is one of the most vibrant organisms operating in Armenia today, it is the advocacy that fights against all illegalities, carries out daily human rights protection activities, exposes lies, falsifications and illegalities of public authorities.

“Of course, the authorities should try to fight against it, and we will not allow the so-called vetting to be implemented in any form,” the advocate said.

Referring to the fact that Gagik Jhangiryan grounded his opinion, saying that today many lawyers are gaining recognition, as they are very easy to communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases, the lawyer said.

I do not understand what it means to “easily communicate with law enforcement agencies or courts”. When it comes to corruption, there is a Criminal Code with relevant crimes, there is also a Criminal Procedure process, with the help of which people are held accountable in case of those crimes. What is the vetting here? Or what does a well-known advocate mean? The one who has a lot of likes, is he? Will those likes determine who they will vet? In the objective reality, I do not imagine the so-called vetting of advocates, and also the justification that Mr. Jhangiryan brought is confusing to me. He is also a specialist in criminal law, he knows that those crimes exist, what kind of vetting is in question?”

According to Varazdat Harutyunyan, advocacy is developing day by day in Armenia as a self-regulating body. And in democratic societies such self-governing unions and bodies are the greatest wealth of a stable civil society.

“Now we have a very good organism, in the person of an advocacy, they also want to infect that organism. They are infecting it with state influence. If you have an established self-regulating organism, you should minimize state influence, because when you increase state influence, the self-regulatory component begins to weaken. And this will eventually lead to the fact that the advocacy will be turned into a state advocacy like the advocacy of the USSR years. This is one of the most obvious achievements of our newly independent state. How can all this be defiled, based on the expediencies of the political day, to make such statements, to make the public against advocates,” he said. Adding that advocacy should be left in its self-regulating state, because there are opposing opinions and debates in advocacy as well, and all this allows the lawyers in the Chamber of Advocates to balance and counterbalance themselves.,

Lusine Hakobyan