The Ministry of Justice has developed a Draft Law “On Making Amendments and Addenda to the Law on Advocacy” within the framework of the strategic direction of the reform of advocacy sector. It has not yet been submitted for public discussion, but was sent to the Chamber of Advocates and all acting advocates for collection of preliminary opinions. Iravaban.net has started a series of interviews, which aims to present the observations and opinions of the advocacy community on the proposed changes.
We talked about the topic with Aleksander Sirunyan, a member of the Chamber of Advocates.
– In your opinion, what is the objective for implementing such changes?
– Ask the writer of the draft about its purpose. I do not know the purpose of these changes, but most of them have no reason, and in addition are not up to date. What does it mean, ‘let’s bring people from the society, to participate in the management of the Chamber of Advocates?’ If so, let’s bring people from the society to the prosecutor’s office. Let him sit and decide with the Prosecutor General how the prosecutor should work.
– One of the proposed changes refers to the review of the role of the Board of the Chamber of Advocates and the Chairman of the Chamber in the executive management relations of the Chamber of Advocates, giving priority to collegial management. How do you feel about this proposed change?
– If the objective is useful, then say, so that we will understand as well. You may have noticed something that we, the lawyers, have not seen. They do not say, but insist that change is needed. There is so much to change in this world. Whether people are good or bad, the Chamber of Advocates is on the same level as the prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement agencies. If you want to limit the powers of the Chairman of the Chamber of Advocates, raise that of the Board, the question arises, why do no other structures want to make such a change? Let there be a democratic government in the police and the prosecutor’s office. Will it be? Should we all gather and vote? Should the prosecutor detain the person or not? Or for example in the courts, members of the public go and tell the judge how he should live in this life.
If they change something, they have to say why they are changing and what was wrong that they now want to improve through change. Explain what was wrong with non-collegial governance?
– One of the proposals for changes refers to the possibility that the Public Defender’s Office will be able to organize public protection of persons through other persons who are not public defenders. Will the change be appropriate?
– I do not see a big problem here, but it should not be mandatory, it should be at the request of the Public Defender’s Office. In our country, the state gives money to the Chamber to organize the protection of the interests of this category of people.
There are two ways in the world and there are even countries where they work in both ways, that is, there are public defenders who work as public defenders, and there are countries where the chamber or the state tells some lawyers, for example, ‘There is 10 million drams, who will protect these 30 people for that amount?’ But we cannot say that this is the only way it should be. I do not see anything wrong with that.
– Mr. Sirunyan, which of the other changes proposed by the Ministry of Justice are problematic and what are the risks on the way to their implementation?
– Collegiality, lowering the status of the Chairman, raising the Board’s. I cannot understand the purpose. The development and establishment of the Chamber was in accordance with the current law. Not much has changed in that law in 20 years. If they want to change, then let them say what is wrong today that they want to improve through change. Only let them not mention that they have studied the experience of Albania. It will not be like that. At least the desire of the author of the draft is not clear.
– How do the advocates perceive the proposed changes?
– The vast majority of 3,000 licensed lawyers will say the same thing. “What is the reason for the proposed changes?” Such changes can lead to very adverse things because we do not know the purpose of passing the law.
The requirement that there should be an annual audit, I agree, it should be. The Ministry of Justice gives about 800 thousand dollars to the Public Defender’s Office, that amount is state money and I do agree that there should be an audit, but the management system should not be changed.
– Do you associate them with the results of the recent election of the Chairman of the Chamber?
– I do not associate, because the Chairman was elected by most of the lawyers, regardless of who wanted to see whom in that position. That person was normally elected and there was no fraud.
Meri Mnoyan
