Vetting is a process of “purification” of the government officials. If an official has been involved in gross human rights abuses, corruption and other crimes, he or she will be disqualified from holding public office.
The former Chairman of the RA Chamber of Advocates, current director of the School of Advocates of the RA Ara Zohrabyan said in the interview with Iravaban.net, referring to the issue that the Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Gagik Jhangiryan made a speech recently, expressing an opinion on the vetting of advocates.
“I do not imagine it in the case of advocates. It is the same if we conduct vetting of an Armenian citizen,” Zohrabyan says.
According to him, if an advocate is involved in corruption or other crimes, he should be prosecuted and deprived of his license. If such a fact is revealed, the same legal consequences exist now.
Referring to the fact that Gagik Jhangiryan based his opinion on the fact that today many lawyers are gaining recognition, as they very easily communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases, he said. “That argument does not tell me anything in particular. If the words ‘easily communicate’ describe corruption, then, I repeat, there should be criminal prosecution.”
Ara Zohrabyan noted that he does not imagine vetting of the advocates, but if, for example, it was a matter of general lustration, that is, revealing what ties officials or people aspiring to certain positions had with the special services, then it would be logical to lustrate the advocates with status of the heads of the RA Chamber of Advocates, including the Office of Public Defender, the heads, deputy heads and the Board Members of the School of Advocates of the RA.
“Because independence is a very important condition for our institution. We have recently witnessed a case when a high-ranking state official turned out to be a NSS agent. But the government does not talk about lustration, because lustration will tear the mask of many,” Ara Zohrabyan said.
Despite the claims of some experts that if vetting is the basis for the reform of the advocacy institute, then that reform can be carried out by dividing one chamber into unions, Ara Zohrabyan said. “It has nothing to do with reform. Even our partners in the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) oppose the partition of the Chamber of Advocates. It is the division that will weaken the independence of our institution, making the intrusion of a state body permissible. The power of advocacy lies in its unity. So the formation of unions cannot be effective.”
