As part of Iravaban.net‘s “Armenian Judges” interview series, we spoke with Rustam Makhmudyan, Chairman of the Administrative Court of Appeal. He talked about his choice of profession, problems in the system, and addressed other issues in the field.
-Mr. Makhmudyan, how did you decide to choose the legal profession specifically? Were there any guidance or advice in this matter?
-Let me say right away that there was absolutely no advice, guidance, or influence from any person. I simply wrote about my intention to become a lawyer for the first time in school, during an essay with the title “what do I want to become.”
Now one might wonder – how did it happen that I chose the legal profession specifically? It was mostly, even within the logic of those school years, about achieving justice, and in many cases, about being able to have your say in various conflict situations.
-You have worked in partially similar and different fields – Human Rights Defender’s Office, Military Prosecutor’s Office, Enforcement Service, National Assembly, Judicial Department. In which of these places did you feel better and more comfortable, and in your opinion, have the problems recorded in these areas over the years been resolved today?
-You’re right to note that my career path has been very multi-faceted and diverse in terms of sectors, but believe me, every time I moved to another field, my work that I had done or was going to do benefited even more.
Each place has been accompanied by certain memories, but perhaps in terms of working for longer years, perhaps due to a newly created institution, I have quite good, positive memories that have been preserved to this day from the Human Rights Defender’s institution, because on March 1, 2004, when I was appointed to that institution, it was at ground zero.
We were about 10-12 people, performing all types of work, and let me tell you that the reason for those good memories was conditioned by the persons holding the position of ombudsman.
-Has the fact of having a political past hindered your professional progress? Have there been cases when participants in court proceedings had questions or complaints in this regard?
-I always consider a political biography in the following way: there should be a change in working environments for any person, and you must perform in all your working environments while remaining faithful to your profession.
There have been no direct, immediate obstacles in my professional and career advancement, but always, even at the level of the press, in terms of different opinions, there may be and has been a certain skepticism among individuals.
When in 2016 I was included in the list of judicial candidates, I decided to go to parliament, also based on the requirements envisaged after the constitutional reforms.
There was an article in the press with the headline “He is supposed to become a judge, but will become an MP.” It was interesting because there is no commonality here.
During my activities, I have had two situations where one of the participants in the proceedings was a former MP, but not from the faction I was in, the other party had submitted a recusal motion, saying that since you were MPs together, you will have a biased attitude.
Of course, I rejected the motion for recusal, first saying that we were not from the same faction.
It is obvious that I did not have warm relations with the mentioned MP.
Details in the video.
