“During this period, the Constitutional Court (CC) and the judges went through many things,” Mr. Arman Dilanyan the President of the Court said in an interview with Iravaban.net.
We talked with the President of the CC about the Rome Statute, the alleged pressures on judges, the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin” early retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and other issues.
– Mr. Dilanyan, the 5th year of your tenure has come to an end (judge from 2018, president of the CC from 2020). What were the problems that were solved during these years, after your election?
– Problems in the Constitutional Court are solved according to the logic of collegiality. During this period and before that, at this moment, after this, the “problems” are the applications submitted to the Court. By problem, I mean the responsibility assumed by the CC. Any constitutional dispute and its resolution are submitted to the Court. It is always a responsibility, a “problem”, something we must be able to overcome accurately, in accordance with the Constitution.
– The social guarantees of the judges of other Courts, salary increase and other such issues are constantly being discussed and the judges are also talking about it. The Constitutional Court is passive in this respect. Can you tell us what kind of problems the CC judges are facing currently?
– We cannot have problems. We are a part of a big state system; we cannot not have the problems that are characteristic of the system. At the same time, we see the changes, their results, which are initiated by the legislator and the executive. We cannot fail to notice that the salaries of the judges, as well as the judges of the Supreme Court, have almost doubled over the last year. We believe that a judge’s salary and social guarantees are among the most important components of a judge’s independence. However, we do not think that they can rise disproportionately without taking into account the economic situation of the state.
Of course, we understand that measures aimed at judges’ living conditions, salary increase, social security programs are still far from meeting international standards. But we cannot demand or expect such changes that are not equivalent to the level of economic development of the state at that moment. Noticing the sincerity of the executive and the legislator, we hope that the salaries of the judges will be increased in line with the economic development.
– In 2018, as a candidate for judge of the CC, you announced in the parliament that every problem that arises in the field of law has its solution in the Constitution. Alleged constitutional crises were discussed in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and after the war. Please indicate first whether the opinions about the constitutional crisis in 2018 and beyond are valid or not. If so, has the crisis reached its conclusion?
– I still think that any problems, crisis situations that arise within the state, have their solution in the Constitution. In this regard, I am irredeemably optimistic. We must always remember that the Constitution is not just a legal document. It has historical, ethical, cultural, economic and other components. All these components in crisis situations help to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to find the legal key to these crises. Another issue is whether there is political will to solve the crises through legal means.
– Is there a will?
– Until now, I notice that there is. We see the overcoming of these crises mainly in the legal way dictated by the Constitution. I think that the Constitutional Court also played a role here with its decisions.
– On 26 March, 2021, when the decision of the Supreme Court regarding Article 300.1 of the former Criminal Code was published, a part of society accepted it with bayonets. Taking into account the great public resonance of the case, can you indicate what difficulties and obstacles the Court and judges faced in those days?
– Public resonance, public authority, etc., these are subjective terms. Only the objective reality is important for the judge of the CC and the Court. Only the objective truth is important in administering justice for the Constitutional Court, and we are guided by that. In any case, the Court, the judge has no right to be guided by any opinion while administering justice.
I think, during this period, the CC proved that impartiality and unbiasedness were not empty words for the Court and the judge.
– All judges should be unfettered, impartial; their decisions should be based only on the materials of the case. However, the situation is such that in front of the doors of the CC, the judges were waiting, they were talking; the journalists were trying to get clarifications on the issues. This is not an ordinary situation for judges of the CC. Were there any complaints or manifestations of pressure from the judges during that time?
– The judge of the Constitutional Court did not show any signs of oppression. I had such an impression when communicating with my colleagues. Taking into account the role of the CC, taking into account what kind of important questions are submitted to the Constitutional Court for examination, judges are aware that they may find themselves in such situations. The mission of the CC judge is to be above such pressures. The judge should be guided only by objective reality, objective circumstances that are important for solving the case.
I have not noticed that any judge of the CC, neither before nor now, has been suppressed by such influences. During this period, the Constitutional Court and the judges went through many things. However, in my opinion, the best fact about the state of the Court and judges, our decisions speak about accepting and resolving these problems. The decisions of the CC are the best proof of the independence and impartiality of the CC.
– The legal regulation regarding the early retirement of CC judges also became the subject of heated discussions. This was evaluated as an option to get rid of Hrayr Tovmasyan, who holds the position of the President of the Court, and judges “unpleasant” to the government. Do you see such a problem and if so, how acceptable and understandable is it for you?
– I do not see such a problem and I have not seen it. With those changes, the will of the Constitution and the people to have the Constitutional Court of the model they voted for in 2015 was realized. We now have a full Constitutional Court provided for by Chapter 7 of the 2015 Constitution.
– In your opinion, wasn’t this decision directed against individuals?
– Absolutely. I can make various claims here. But let’s take it and look at the decisions of the CC. We all know the individuals; we all know what it was about. Let’s read the decisions of the CC. After those changes, which decision of the CC proves the truth of those claims? I think the decisions of the CC are the best refutation of those claims.
On 7 December, the European Court of Human Rights published the decision in the case “Gyulumyan et al. v. Armenia” No. 25240/20. The European Court recognized the complaints of the three former judges of the Constitutional Court and the former President of the Constitutional Court as inadmissible.
– On 24 March, the Constitutional Court published the decision regarding the conformity of the Rome Statute with the RA constitution. 3 judges, including Judge Hrayr Tovmasyan, presented a special opinion on it. He noted that with that decision, the Constitutional Court went beyond the scope of its powers defined by the Constitution and the Law. Is such an assessment by the judge acceptable and/or comprehensible for the Court, the President of the Court?
– The attitude of the Court is the decision of the Court. We had 3 special opinions. This is a very normal situation in Courts. On the one hand, we have a special opinion of 3 judges, on the other hand, an opinion of 6 judges. The decision of the CC you mentioned is the opinion of 6 judges. I believe that the answers to your questions regarding special opinions are best presented in the decision of the Constitutional Court. I will simply ask that this decision be read with due attention and attitude. I think that no question will arise in that case.
– Here the question was not the issue whether the decision and the special opinion was valid or not, but the evaluation of the acting judge of the Constitutional Court regarding the institution.
– Under no circumstances will I allow myself to evaluate the opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court. I am more than sure that your concerns, which you raise, will be dispelled; you will get all the answers to your questions in the decision of the Constitutional Court. We have addressed these issues in full. The Court referred not only to the compliance of the obligations established by the statute of the criminal Court with the Constitution; we did not take any formal action. The CC made in-depth analyses.
– And do such different opinions create a working atmosphere?
– They are necessary. The battle of those ideas is necessary in order to give birth to an objective, multilateral decision in the CC. That is very fair.
Even if the decision is not accepted unanimously, the public can see why most of the judges made this type of decision. The opinion of the judges is fixed in the decision, the opinion of the minority, which did not vote in favor of the decision, can be seen in special opinions.
The institution of special opinions is very important. In my opinion, they should be mandatory in the case of a collegial body. To say that it hinders the normal functioning of the CC… We do not consider it that way. We are actually looking for that objective criticism. Of course, healthy, reasonable, politically non-directed, non-trendy criticism.
– The Constitutional Court made a procedural decision to apply to the Venice Commission (“Democracy through Law European Commission”) in order to obtain an advisory opinion related to the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin”. It has been a long time since the Venice Commission delivered its opinion. Please tell: Are you and the Court, satisfied with the advisory opinion of the Venice Commission and when to anticipate the final decision of the CC on this issue?
– Getting an advisory opinion from the Venice Commission was one of the actions. We received complete answers to the questions.
Recently, we requested and received information on law enforcement practices, including the decisions made regarding the enforcement of the law, from government agencies involved in the enforcement of the said law. We have received a huge amount of material and are now engaged in the study of this material.
Details in the video.
Interview: Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
