Representatives of the executive and legislative bodies have been talking about the need to make constitutional changes for a long time. On 5 November, the Ministry of Justice organized discussions on Constitutional reforms. On 17 December of this year, the RA Prime Minister signed a decision on starting the process of forming the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms

Iravaban.net has launched a series of interviews, with the objective to present the observations and opinions of experts in the field on the need for constitutional reform.

We talked about the topic with Vache Hovhannisyan, Doctor of Law, Professor, and Head of YSU Chair of Civil Procedure.

– The Ministry of Justice announced the initiation of the constitutional reform. To what extent its need is justified for it now?

– In my opinion, the most important issue in terms of constitutional reform should be the choice of governance model. A few years ago, when constitutional changes were initiated, as a result of which we switched to a parliamentary model of government, I spoke out against it. At that time, during the meetings with the members of the Committee, I expressed the opinion that in the conditions in which our country is, the parliamentary model of government cannot justify itself. Especially in the current situation in Armenia, I think we should move to a semi-presidential model of government, if, of course, we have a task to ensure effective governance. I want to especially emphasize that any change, be it a constitutional or other change in the legal system, must pursue a legitimate goal. If the change of the governance model is aimed at overcoming the challenges facing the Republic of Armenia and increasing the efficiency of governance, then yes, it is necessary.

– What factors should be taken into account before the adoption of the new Constitution and what should be the process of implementation of constitutional reforms?

– We must take into account several circumstances. First of all, we see that the current Constitution sometimes does not contain effective structures in terms of overcoming the governance crisis. It is necessary to assess what possible crisis situations there may be, we are talking about a constitutional crisis, and to establish structures to exclude such crises by the new constitution.

I think we have a countdown after the defeat in the war. This refers to the five-year period during which the Russian peacekeeping mission will be in the territory of the NKR, and one year has already passed. During these years, we must work to restore our resources, both in terms of economic efficiency, governance, and policy processes. That countdown can be said to be not in our favor in the current legal regulations. I think we need to move quickly to a model of mobilization economy, in which the semi-presidential form can be much more effective than the parliamentary model of government.

– The Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms (the activity of the Committee was suspended due to 2020 Karabakh war), on 22 August 2020, adopted the draft concept of decentralization of Constitutional Control and unification of the highest courts, in particular the establishment of the Supreme Court. To what extent is the decentralization of Constitutional control and the creation of the Supreme Court justified?

– I consider the creation of the Supreme Court justified, but in a slightly different way. I think that in the case of the countries of our continental legal system, it is not the Constitutional and Cassation Courts that should be united, but the Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. I’m more in favor of this model. A new Supreme Court should be established with a unique model for reviewing judicial acts. I think in this respect we will solve much more serious problems facing the judicial system. It is about ensuring the right to a fair trial and increasing the efficiency of justice. The resources that we will spend to ensure the normal functioning of the Supreme Court to be established as a result of the unification of the Constitutional and Cassation Courts should be directed to the unification of the Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. We need to introduce a much more efficient judicial review system and strengthen the courts of first instance. In my opinion, the main emphasis should be on ensuring the normal functioning of the court resolving the dispute.

– Experts in the field of anti-corruption argue that providing constitutional status and guarantees of independence to anti-corruption bodies, such as the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Committee, will increase the independence and efficiency of these institutions. What is your opinion on this issue?

– I do not see any problem there. Such an approach can definitely be taken and justified. It should be emphasized here that if the structure operates effectively, that is, if there is a will to increase the efficiency of the structure, then providing the status of a Constitutional body is right. But I think it would not be correct to rely only on those constitutional regulations. I can refer to bodies that have constitutional status, but I do not consider their activities effective.

On 17 December of this year, the RA Prime Minister signed a decision on starting the process of forming the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms. The process seems to be starting. What course shall it have in your opinion?

– I cannot say what will happen. In terms of necessity, it is important what objective is pursued. If the constitutional reforms pursue a legitimate objective, then that process should be started and completed, but if that process does not pursue such an objective, then I consider this whole process an end in itself. I’m against another cloth.

Meri Mnoyan