PUBLIC PRESSURES IS HELPFUL TO INVESTIGATIVE BODIES
Interview with Ara Ghazaryan, deputy director of ARNI Consult Law Firm
Mr. Ghazaryan, the annual report of the Department of State states
“courts remained subject to political pressure from the executive
branch”. Acquittals are 1.5%. So, are changes in the judiciary aimed
at form, not content?
First, the reports of the State Department are mostly collective and
general, I would not rely on them because we are going through reforms
and we can assess the state of things better. In 2009 acquittals
were 25, in 2010 – 56, in 2011 – 77. People are increasingly prone to
apply to courts, the courts are overloaded. The number of judges per
population is too few, the number of judges must be boosted as courts
are receiving more applications. According to last year’s statistics,
20,000 cases were sent to the administrative court only. This court
has most overload, and the question occurs whether the steep rise of
number of applications to courts speaks about lack of confidence in
courts… Not, of course. One of the answers could be diversification
of legal relations. There are a lot of alternatives, extra-judiciary
mechanisms where the same growth of cases is not observed. So,
confidence is not deceasing at least if the number of applications
to court grows.
In your opinion, was the notorious case of Mataghis the result of a
single-handed decision and was it the judge’s decision? Is the court
able to be independent from the government?
The public is aware of those cases which are covered by journalists,
while journalists cover those cases which present public interest. As
a professional, a student, I see a full picture. The case of Mataghis
is an exception due to the force of its evidence, I do not take it
as a standard. For me the standard is the 30 factors worked out by
American lawyers which measure the performance of judicial reforms.
These factors include the salary of judges, self-regulatory mechanisms
etc. Compiling all the facts, I can report growth in many aspects.
Today the key issue is the independence of courts. Of course, the
judicial system is not fully independent but it is a process, and there
are guarantees of independence, and the judicial system is making an
important bid, and now they are speaking about internal independence
of judges. While the courts are subject to political pressure, the
internal system, including the Court of Cassation, the Council of
Justice, the Judicial Department and other institutions, have developed
to a degree that now judges are in dependence on the internal system,
the self-regulatory bodies of the judiciary. We learn from different
cases that the judicial system counteracts pressure. Of course, there
are cases when a judge is unable to resist the executive but they
tend to decrease. The executive has understood that if intervention
continues, international investments will decrease because foreign
investors first look at the mechanisms of judicial protection. In
lots of spheres these mechanisms are effective, in others, such as
tax justice, judicial check is lame but this is a process, and the
vector is directed at development.
The case of Harsnakar was vociferous in the beginning but seems to be
entering into a deadlock. Is the interest of one person subordinated
to the public interest?
The court examination is in progress, we cannot give evaluations now.
The defenders of the victim have filed a number of complaints during
the preliminary examination but this is not a measurement because
defense starts working only at the end of the preliminary examination
so it is early to make evaluations. Second, there is no evidence that
Ruben Hairapetyan was engaged in the incident, it is a presumption
that it could not be that he was not engaged in the incident. If he
was engaged, I very much doubt that fair trial will reach him. His
sponsors will protect him. Unfortunately, this factor has to be taken
into consideration. However, the Council for the Defense is unable
to provide evidence that Ruben Hairapetyan knew or was engaged in
the incident.
Does the inspection of the scene with a three-day delay indicate a
tendency to cover up the case?
Yes, at the beginning the tendency of cover-up was evident. First the
case was sent to the Ministry of Defense because the subject was an
officer who was supposed to have broken the law. However, the public
backlash caused the ministry of defense to send the case back, and
the statement of the chief of police followed who said that soon some
people would be arrested. This is not the usual practice. A chief of
police would not announce arrests beforehand.
So does it take public pressure to control the process?
Public pressure is helpful to the investigative bodies. They take
public opinion into consideration more than ever, the judiciary as
well. This is one of the biggest achievements of March 1. I teach
at the Prosecutors School, they take public opinion seriously, and
the reforms these institutions are undergoing are the result of a
political decision rather than public pressure.
Investigators are the most important actors in the stage of preliminary
examination but there are not enough resources. The investigative
bodies must have more resources to upgrade their practice.
We often see cases sent to court where evidence is marred with
shortcomings which are the result of scarce resources.
There must be public control and a corpus of unbiased advocates to
turn the wheel of justice.
Siranuysh Papyan 15:43 07/06/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/interview/view/30082