The Association of Judges has issued a statement, which reads:

“Dear Council,

In the interviews with “factor.am” media outlet on 11 February and to “Facebook Press Conference” program of “Liberty” radio station on 14 February ((links: https://factor.am/474642.html and https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=479653063738053, respectively), RA Minister of Justice Karen Andreasyan, violating the principles of behavior presented to the public servant, in particular, by not behaving in a manner worthy of the political position, not showing elementary polite attitude and political restraint, made expressions insulting and labeling the representatives of the other wing of the power, insulting the judges, degrading the authority of the judiciary, which unfortunately did not receive a proper response.

With this letter referring to the Minister’s duty to behave in a manner worthy of him, I believe that the Supreme Judicial Council also has something to say and do in this matter, which is within the scope of its constitutional powers.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the RA Law on Public Service:

1. A political position is an elective or appointive office provided for by the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Armenia where the person holding this position is competent to take political decisions and bears political responsibility for these decisions.
2. State political positions shall be the positions (…) of ministers (…), and deputy ministers.
3. Relations pertaining to the principles of and procedure for organization of the activities of officials holding political positions shall be prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, other laws of the Republic of Armenia.

Pursuant to Article 19 of the RA Law on Public Service:

1. The main responsibilities of a public servant shall be as follows:

(1) complying with the requirements of the Constitution, laws and other legal acts;

(2) getting acquainted with the legal acts laying down his or her powers in the position held;

(3) following the principles of conduct of a public servant and rules of conduct deriving from them, the incompatibility requirements, other restrictions, and conflict-of-interest regulations;

(4) fulfilling, in a precise and timely manner, the obligations vested in him or her by the legislation, and presenting reports and, in the cases prescribed by law, also declarations; (…)»:

Pursuant to Article 25 of the same law:

1. Public servants and persons holding public positions shall demonstrate conduct appropriate for their position. They shall demonstrate a well-mannered attitude towards all persons they interact with in the course of exercising their powers.
2. Public servants and persons holding public positions shall respect the dignity of the superiors, immediate supervisors, partners, subordinates thereof.

Pursuant to Article 27 of the RA Law on Public Service:

1. Public servants and persons holding public positions shall demonstrate impartiality when exercising their powers, excluding any discrimination.
2. Public servants, as required by the specific aspects of their service, shall be politically neutral when performing official duties (…).

Pursuant to Article 27.1 of the RA Law on Public Service:

1. Public servants shall be obliged to show political restraint in any circumstance.
2. The political activities of public servants shall not call into question the impartiality of the public service.

In the context of the above-mentioned legal norms regulating the lawful behavior of the Minister holding a political position and the proper fulfillment of official duties, studying the above-mentioned speeches of Minister K. Andreasyan, I find that a number of wordings in them demean the dignity of courts and judges. The labels, titles, classifications of judges, and criteria for that classification used in common parlance lack the basic rules of etiquette, are not suitable for a public servant, especially a public servant holding the post of Minister of Justice, and calls into question the impartiality of the public service officially provided by Minister K. Andreasyan.

Moreover, they contradict the requirements of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, insofar as even the existence of a reasonable doubt cannot prove that the decision to detain a judge is legal, justified and reasoned.

I also think that the separate thoughts voiced in the minister’s speeches contradict the requirements of the Constitutional Law the Judicial Code of the RA.

In particular, pursuant to Article 79, Part 1 of the Constitutional Law the Judicial Code of the RA: “The Supreme Judicial Council shall be an independent state body guaranteeing the independence of courts and judges through exercising the powers prescribed by the Constitution and this Law.”

Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 90 of the same law: “When examining the issues with regard to giving consent to imposition of disciplinary action against a judge or a member of the Supreme Judicial Council, to imposed termination of powers of a judge or a member of the Supreme Judicial Council, as well as to initiating criminal prosecution against a judge or a member of the Supreme Judicial Council or depriving them of liberty in connection with the exercise of their powers, the Supreme Judicial Council shall act as a court.”

Pursuant to Article 7 of the Constitutional Law the Judicial Code of the RA:

1. When administering justice and exercising other powers provided for by law when acting as a court, as well as exercising rights stemming from the status of a judge, a judge shall be independent from state and local self-government bodies, officials, natural and legal persons, and shall not be accountable to anyone and, inter alia, shall not be obliged to give any explanations.
2. A court shall examine and decide on a case or a matter (hereinafter referred to as “case”) in accordance with the Constitution and law, evaluating the circumstances of the case through his or her inner conviction
3. State and local self-government bodies and officials shall abstain from actions which may jeopardise or harm the independence of a court or judge.
4. Any interference with the activities of a court or judge in connection with the administration of justice or exercise of other powers provided for by law when acting as a court, as well as exercise of rights stemming from the status of a judge, or disrespectful attitude towards the court shall entail liability provided for by law.
5. The Supreme Judicial Council, based on the statement of a judge with regard to an interference with his or her activities in connection with the administration of justice or exercise of other powers provided for by law when acting as a court, as well as exercise of rights stemming from the status of a judge, shall file a motion with the competent body for holding the allegedly guilty persons liable. The competent body shall immediately inform the Supreme Judicial Council in writing about the measures taken.
6. The Supreme Judicial Council shall have the right to make an official statement on the measures taken by the competent body, as well as its failure to take relevant measures within a reasonable time limit.

(…).”

In this case, the Minister, as an official, was and is obliged to refrain from actions that could endanger or damage the independence of the SJC, which in turn is called to ensure the independence not only of its members but also of its judges, and inter alia within the framework of current disciplinary proceedings.

Meanwhile, public expressions such as expressing disappointment with the work of the SJC due to the results of the investigation and settlement of legal proceedings; expressing frustration with SJC’s work; allegations that the SJC is sometimes not at its place; Classification of SJC members as honest and not so honest, good or bad judges; calling a judicial clan the SJC members who voted against his motions; expressing a desire to find out the circle of judges who voted against his motions and to reveal the reasons for it; non-compliance with the SJC’s decisions to reject his “reasonable” motions in the conditions of their irrevocability; conditioning of the delay in the implementation of vetting in Armenia by the condition of not satisfying by the SJC of the petitions he had submitted; and which have been done and are being done by a high-ranking state official such as the Minister of Justice: from the point of view of the current disciplinary proceedings under consideration in the SJC, there are elements of illegal interference in the activities of the SJC’s members, which is generally incompatible with the idea of an independent judiciary and justice.

Based on the above, I propose the Supreme Judicial Council to join this announcement, and to raise before the competent body, the issue of bringing the above-mentioned official to justice, thus restraining his unlawful conduct.”