As a result of vetting, the independence of advocates will be limited. Attorney Gayane Gevorgyan told Iravaban.net, referring to the speech of Gagik Jhangiryan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, a few days before, in which he expressed his opinion about the vetting of advocates saying, “I can say that the process of cleaning and purification should also refer to the advocates’ service, because, unfortunately, it is accepted in our country, for the most part, I do not want to offend anyone, but there are advocates who communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases very easily get recognition. In other words, this vetting must include the entire judicial system and all the bodies that serve and support it.”
Gayane Gevorgyan mentioned that the lawyers have regular and obligatory annual trainings, it is also obligatory for the advocates to submit new legal acts when getting involved in court proceedings. “From the point of view of integrity, I would like to inform that especially recently the older lawyers have either resigned or do not work, and mainly new advocates are working. Since 2012, the school of lawyers has graduates twice a year. And graduating from the school of advocates or passing the qualification exam is quite difficult. Therefore, there is a need for vetting, but it should be applied to a very small number of advocates.”
According to her, there are advocates whose work style seems to be dictated by state bodies and are formally involved in cases, but only one in ten may be like that. According to Gayane Gevorgyan, it will not be possible to conduct vetting exclusively against the latter, but the entire advocacy community will be involved in that process. And it will turn out that due to one or a very small number of community representatives, the whole community may experience shock,” she said, adding that the implementation of vetting will hinder the activities of advocates.
Gayane Gevorgyan says that due to the coronavirus, the trainings of lawyers during the last year are mainly online, and some lawyers register, join the training, but do not participate.
“This, of course, will leave its negative consequence. And if there is control, it can be a stimulus for no advocate not to simply join, but really participate in the courses. But let me mention again that very few people behave in this way,” she said.
According to her, the legal community is being persecuted by the judiciary and state bodies.
“In many cases, our rights have already been limited, for example, there are attempts not to provide information, and this is a very serious problem for us in terms of acting. The advocate must also collect the data and facts in order to be able to protect the rights of his/her clients,” she said.
In reply to the question, if the vetting of lawyers becomes a reality, what steps the advocacy community should take, Gayane Gevorgyan said that an attempt should be made to strengthen the mechanisms of protection or guarantees by some other legal act.
Despite the claim of a group of lawyers that if vetting is a basis for reform, then reform can also be implemented through the formation of unions, Gayane Gevorgyan thinks that this is not an effective option.
Lusine Hakobyan
