The Anti-Corruption Committee chairman candidate selection interview, conducted on January 20th within the Government building chambers, has sparked considerable debate regarding its procedural integrity and the nature of questioning employed.
Through careful examination of the two-hour interview footage, Iravaban.net has identified several concerning patterns in the questioning methodology that have raised significant concerns among legal professionals and anti-corruption specialists.
The legal framework for such interviews is clearly delineated in Article 17 of the Law on Anti-Corruption Committee, which establishes specific evaluation criteria: commission members are tasked with assessing candidates’ professional accomplishments, analytical capabilities, situational judgment, sense of accountability, communication proficiency, motivational factors for seeking the appointment, future objectives, and other pertinent personal qualities essential for the position.
The legislative framework permits supplementary questioning regarding the integrity advisory opinion provided by the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. However, it explicitly prohibits questioning designed to test candidates’ legal knowledge.
Article 19 of the aforementioned law structures the interview process into distinct phases:
- a) Leadership Assessment Phase: The Council conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate’s executive and administrative competencies, alongside crucial personal attributes including self-regulation, professional conduct, active listening capabilities, interpersonal communication skills in both formal and informal contexts, and analytical prowess.
- b) Legal Analysis Phase: Candidates must demonstrate their ability to analyze and articulate positions on specific legal matters, whether concerning statutory provisions, regulatory frameworks, or judicial precedents within their field of specialization. This phase evaluates their capacity for rapid situational assessment, composure, professional demeanor, communication effectiveness, analytical capabilities, and other position-relevant qualifications.
Additionally, a comprehensive questionnaire is developed specifically to evaluate the candidate’s professional expertise and knowledge base. The evaluation protocol stipulates that the candidate must respond to precisely one question from this questionnaire, emphasizing depth of understanding rather than breadth of coverage.
- The Core Interview Phase: Assessment of Personal Qualities
The interview process commenced with an unexpected development: only a single candidate, Rafael Yeritsyan, stepped forward for this crucial position. Competition Council Chairman Karen Tumanyan established a structured evaluation framework comprising three distinct assessment phases: personal characteristics evaluation, integrity verification, and professional competency assessment.
The initial round of questioning was led by Council Member Daniel Ioannisyan, who focused primarily on evaluating the candidate’s personal qualities. While approximately three to four questions addressed the candidate’s perspective on committee operations, the interrogation took an unconventional turn:
“-There exists a well-known adage suggesting that one who would steal a horse would not hesitate to steal an egg. How do you interpret this maxim’s relevance to contemporary manifestations of corruption?”
-Your record shows no administrative violations related to traffic regulations. What accounts for this noteworthy compliance?”
-Might one interpret the absence of administrative infractions as potentially stemming from the use of unauthorized registration plates on your vehicle?”
-Your vehicle is equipped with a “zaglushka”. What purpose does this serve?”
The dialogue proceeded along this trajectory for approximately ten minutes, with particular emphasis on the “zaglushka” installation and implications regarding its intentional deployment.
Edgar Arsenyan, who heads the Department of Supervision over Pre-trial Proceedings’ Legality in the Anti-Corruption Committee at the Prosecutor General’s Office, maintained this automotive-centric line of inquiry:
“-Are there instances where your designated driver operates your personal vehicle in service to you?”
-Consider a scenario where your organization’s investigative unit uncovers information concerning someone in your immediate circle. What would be your response protocol when such intelligence is reported to you by your subordinate, and what specific measures would you implement?”
Ani Chatinyan, representing HCA Vanadzor office’s legal department, directed the inquiry toward fundamental motivational factors:
“-Please articulate your primary motivation for pursuing the chairmanship of the Anti-Corruption Committee.
-What is your strategic vision regarding anti-corruption efforts?”
-Should you secure this appointment, what would you identify as your operational priorities?”
Notably, of the seven-member commission, only three participants engaged in this initial questioning phase.
- Integrity and Declaration Assessment Phase
Despite the Chairman’s directive to maintain a structured one-question-one-answer format, this protocol was not consistently observed. Daniel Ioannisyan initiated a detailed examination of Rafael Yeritsyan’s financial declarations:
“-Your father’s financial records indicate substantial deposits, yet these amounts are conspicuously absent from the 2017 declaration. The 2018 declaration appears to be missing entirely, while the 2019 declaration suddenly shows monetary deposits totaling 27 million drams, with subsequent annual increases. Please elucidate the source of these funds.” When the candidate provided his response, the Council member, appearing unsatisfied, persisted in his line of questioning, deviating from established procedural guidelines.
Yeprem Karapetyan, who directs the Anti-Corruption Policy Development and Monitoring Department within the Ministry of Justice, focused his inquiry on two critical areas: integrity and whistleblowing mechanisms:
“-Whistleblowing serves as a crucial instrument in corruption prevention, encompassing both external and internal reporting channels. How would you respond to a scenario where an employee within your organization brings forward allegations of impropriety?”
-Public officials must demonstrate mastery of conduct regulations and maintain impeccable integrity. What approach would you adopt when confronted with behavioral infractions or situational ethical violations?”
Ani Chatinyan’s questioning diverged from both integrity and declaration matters, instead exploring hypothetical scenarios:
“-Consider a situation where you face political or other forms of pressure. You possess an unambiguous position supported by criminal case evidence, yet external pressures persist. How would you navigate such circumstances?”
-Please articulate your position regarding criminal subculture phenomena.”
The examination of Yeritsyan’s declaration revealed gift transaction entries, prompting Council Chairman Karen Tumanyan to inquire:
“-What was your age at the time your grandfather transferred those land parcels to your father?”
-When your grandfather acquired these parcels through the village privatization process, what was your age?”
Edgar Arsenyan pursued a line of questioning regarding foreign currency deposits potentially held by Yeritsyan’s father.
A notable procedural dispute erupted between the Council Chairman and Daniel Ioannisyan. The latter had independently solicited information from the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, which confirmed that a 2018 declaration should have been submitted but was not. Tumanyan questioned the propriety of such independent inquiry.
“Mr. Tumanyan,” Ioannisyan responded with evident frustration, “I didn’t storm the CPC with an automatic weapon – I simply submitted an information request, to which they responded. What exactly is problematic about this?”
Tumanyan clarified his position: “Neither I nor any other Council member is restricted from gathering relevant information independently when it serves to evaluate the candidate effectively.”
Ioannisyan proceeded with his examination: “A striking aspect of your financial profile is the cash holdings. Please explain your preference for maintaining liquid assets.”
“-Regarding your family’s accumulated wealth, albeit modest – what is its provenance?”
-Please detail the sources of income for your extended family – yourself, your parents, and their parents.”
The interview then entered an extensive discussion regarding beekeeping-derived income, also documented in the declaration. The questioning sought to establish specific details about the apiary operation, including species of bees maintained, revenue generation, and income mechanics: “-Our research into average beekeeping operations in Armenia suggests profitability figures significantly lower than what your grandmother reportedly achieves.”
This line of questioning reached such intensity that Chairman Tumanyan ultimately deactivated Ioannisyan’s microphone, stating: “While I acknowledge your broad expertise, including beekeeping, please maintain focus with your questions. Some matters are best left to subject matter experts. Despite your comprehensive knowledge across multiple domains, please proceed with your designated line of questioning.”
Ani Chatinyan pursued the beekeeping narrative: “-My family also engages in apiculture, yet we cannot reconcile these financial figures. The reported income of 2.5 million drams raises fundamental questions about the nature of this operation.”
Karen Tumanyan attempted to bring closure to this line of inquiry: “-To clarify: you personally do not maintain the apiary; your grandmother manages the operation. She provides you with periodic proceeds from the beekeeping enterprise. Do you personally engage in honey distribution? Are you conversant with measurement standards and feeding protocols? To what extent are you familiar with these operational aspects?”
Ioannisyan then unexpectedly shifted the discussion to the candidate’s activities during the 44-day war. Perhaps more surprisingly, the interview ventured into the territory of the “March 1” events: “-Do you have any association with Avetik Atabekyan, who stands accused in the ‘March 1’ case? We have received intelligence suggesting you provided legal consultation regarding strategies for evading criminal prosecution.”
This analysis derives from examination of public records and aims to facilitate discussion rather than render definitive judgments regarding any individual or process. Its primary objective is to enhance transparency and operational effectiveness within anti-corruption institutions.
- Structural Issues in Competition Council Formation
Prior reporting by Iravaban.net identified significant interconnections among three council members, creating potential conflicts of interest. The members in question – Supreme Judicial Council member Karen Tumanyan, Union of Informed Citizens NGO founder Daniel Ioannisyan, and HCA Vanadzor office legal department coordinator Ani Chatinyan – demonstrated these interconnections during the initial council chairman selection process.
- Qualification Concerns Regarding Council Members
Article 18, Section 3 of the “Law on Anti-Corruption Committee” establishes explicit qualification requirements for council members. The documented potential discrepancies include:
Publicly available information fails to substantiate requisite legal specialization experience. Available records indicate the commission member lacks such qualification.
- b) Conflict of Interest Manifestations:
- Professional association between Karen Tumanyan and Ani Chatinyan at HCA Vanadzor
- Chatinyan’s role in Tumanyan’s nomination for council chairman
- Common funding source (DDF) for both parties
- Evolution of Assessment Methodology
2.1 Deficiencies in Initial Assessment Framework
The original assessment protocol exhibited several fundamental limitations:
- The framework lacked quantifiable performance indicators
- No standardized methodology existed for point allocation
- The absence of objective assessment criteria hindered fair evaluation
2.2 Enhanced Assessment Framework Characteristics
The revised protocol introduced significant methodological improvements:
- Implementation of a comprehensive 100-point evaluation system structured as follows:
- Personal attribute assessment: 30 points
- Integrity evaluation: 40 points
- Professional competency verification: 30 points
III. Comprehensive Analysis of Interview Phase Procedural Irregularities
3.1 Question Classification and Legal Compliance
The interview questions can be systematically categorized as follows:
- a) Non-pertinent Technical Inquiries (originated by D. Ioannisyan):
- “Vehicle emission control device “zaglushka” installation
- Traffic violation record examination
- Vehicle registration documentation authenticity”
- b) Personal Domain Intrusions:
- Detailed apiculture revenue inquiries (A. Chatinyan)
- Grandmother’s beekeeping enterprise income specifics (K. Tumanyan)
- c) Political Context Questioning (D. Ioannisyan):
- Activities during the 44-day military conflict
- Association with March 1 case defendant Avetik Atabekyan
3.2 Statistical Question Distribution Analysis
Question category distribution revealed:
- Non-pertinent inquiries: 60% of total questions
- Integrity-focused examination: 20%
- Professional competency assessment: 20%
- Integrity Verification Process Evaluation
4.1 Commission for Prevention of Corruption (CPC) Conclusion Implementation
Despite having access to the CPC’s formal conclusion, several procedural irregularities emerged:
- a) CPC Conclusion Application Patterns:
- Council members frequently deviated from CPC guidelines
- Conducted unauthorized parallel investigations
- Redundant verification of previously validated information
- b) Jurisdictional Boundary Analysis:
- Council members exceeded their prescribed authority
- Demonstrated unnecessary duplication of CPC functions
- Council Member Bias Assessment
5.1 Documented Instances of Potential Bias
- a) Daniel Ioannisyan’s Conduct Analysis:
- Reliance on independently gathered pre-interview intelligence
- Excessive focus on personal circumstances
- Unauthorized professional competency testing
- b) Ani Chatinyan’s Questioning Patterns:
- Predetermined focus on apiculture operations
- Disproportionate emphasis on financial matters
Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations
- Legal Framework Enhancement:
- Strengthen council member qualification requirements
- Establish robust conflict of interest detection mechanisms
- Develop comprehensive interview protocol guidelines
- Procedural Improvements:
- Create standardized question repository
- Implement balanced question type distribution
- Establish transparent evaluation criteria
- Oversight Mechanism Development:
- Institute public monitoring framework for interview processes
- Create effective appeals process for council decisions
