The events related to the arrest and release of the second RA president, Robert Kocharyan, caused a strong political response, comparable to a seven-point earthquake. The judge who made the decision to release Kocharyan from detention forced the political forces not only of Armenia but also of Artsakh to play openly, putting all the cards on the table. It is a positive phenomenon for the society taken as a whole, because it allowed to conduct a unique lustration of all political forces, to show the people who they are and whose interests they protect.

As for the entire judicial system, the radical reform of which was talked about a year ago, that decision of the court was the last drop of people’s dissatisfaction, starting with the Constitutional Court, in terms of the demolition of the old, top-to-bottom corrupt judicial system and the construction of a new one. It should be noted that Armenia received positive reactions from Europe and the United States for that decision of the government. Thus, PACE co-rapporteurs for the monitoring of Armenia, Yulia Levochkina and Andrey Shirchel, stated that the independence of the judiciary is a necessary condition for the rule of law and is best ensured by the absence of any interference by political entities. The US Embassy also issued a statement, which specifically states: “The United States is committed to supporting the strengthening of an independent judiciary in Armenia, which includes anti-corruption efforts and building rule of law institutions.” Ruben Carranza, senior expert of the International Center for Transitional Justice, came to Armenia.

However, in all the statements from the western circles, it is emphasized that the reforms of the judicial system and “veting” should be conducted strictly within the limits of the law. Some did not support Pashinyan at all. For example, the former ambassador of Poland to Armenia, Marek Nowakowski, stated that he was “surprised that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan appealed to block court buildings.” The ambassador is worried that the stock of public trust given to Pashinyan may run out quickly.

Experts were talking about the importance of the immediate adoption of laws on elections, not only on reforms of the judicial system, but also on ownership, parties, and elections a year ago. However, could those laws reflecting today’s realities be developed and adopted, if the Basic Law, the Constitution, which was written to legitimize the power of one man, Serzh Sargsyan, remains unchanged today. Of course not. During this time, it was possible to write, discuss and adopt a new Constitution appropriate to the spirit of the time. Now if we want to pass a new law or reform the judicial system, there have always been and there will be people and organizations that will declare that the law or the given reform does not correspond to the Constitution and that all the actions of the law enforcement officers are for settling scores by the new government. As a result, all the suspects flee to Russia, which does not betray “its own”, turning them into political persecutors. And that is when in Armenia they are persecuted not for their political beliefs, but purely for criminal cases. This is, of course, Russia’s business, but it is worth noting that such an approach obviously does not increase the number of the pro-Russian population of Armenia.

This is the predicament we are in. The absence of a law on property creates constant arguments in society: why this or that briber who robbed the country was not brought to justice, and goes free? Meanwhile, the relevant law could have clearly demarcated the difference between what was stolen and what was legally earned. Moreover, the judges would be able to make the right decisions, and the people would be satisfied, because the stolen money would go to the state treasury. And now all the corrupt people are walking calmly in Armenia, and if they feel danger, they immediately flee to Moscow. And our human rights defenders enviable them they give an opportunity to rob the country, and then make excuses that they can’t catch them. It’s just not clear who is deceiving whom.

Of course, the much-talked-about “vetting” is necessary. However, it cannot solve the above-mentioned problems without the Constitution.