THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS

“The institute of dual citizenship mustn’t be so complicated, and I notice that not only the politicians note but the press also publishes that there are still some questions. There is no question at all”, – ARF faction head Hrayr Karapetyan said in “Urbat” club on February 27. It’s obvious that he answered the “Aravot’s” publication titled “ Dual citizenship was adopted, the questions remained”. Let us substantiate our standpoint.

Question 1: How did ARF recognize the addition of the law according to which citizens who aren’t registered in Armenia can’t participate in the elections as anti-constitutional and opposed to it? While the ARF formed concept foresees that “dual citizens may use the electoral right after living in Armenia uninterruptedly”.

Question 2: The same concept alludes: “There are some limitation in certain countries which use dual citizenship in filling elective and appointed positions”. Why wasn’t any limitation foreseen about appointed positions and the ULP proposals to limit RA prime minister’s and government members’ opportunity to be dual citizens?

Question 3:  Was the following question answered finally, which DPA leader Aram Sargsyan also gave just before the polling: “Let’s find out, do we consider our diplomatic establishments as RA territory or don’t?” This question is about holding election abroad, in the RA diplomatic and consular representations. Whether holding elections only in Armenia doesn’t break the RA citizens electoral right?

Question 4: It was determined that each person has a right to get RA nationality “if he is Armenian by origin, that is, his ancestors are Armenians”. One of the parliamentarians of RPA faction was interested during the discussion of first reading, which is that state body that will ensure the Armenian nationality. The reporter replied that the Church’s parish journals might be the proof for it. Is this enough?

Question 5: “We don’t have a right to practice discrimination”, – Minister of Justice David Harutiunyan answered when NA chairman Tigran Torosyan proposed to remove the item from the draft according to which those who have refused of RA nationality in 1995 may restore it by pared-down order. Are they sure that the Azeris who left our country won’t restore the RA nationality?

Question 6: RPA faction leader Galust Sahakyan stressed the following as an unsolved question during the press conference and not in the hall of NA sittings: “It isn’t clear, if a person is a citizen of two conflicting countries for which one sake must that dual citizen act?”

Question 7: ANM administration member Hovanes Igityan reminded during the dispute that according to the law “About Parties”, the financial support of foreign citizens to the parties if the rights of dual citizens out of Armenia aren’t limited by party membership”. David Haroutiunyan   informed on this occasion that the parties aren’t allowed to be financed from abroad, to have members abroad. There is a contradiction, isn’t it?

Question 8: The most important question: if there weren’t political purposes, is there any meaning to discuss this important problem in this period, when the parliamentarians are busy in pre-electoral activities, when the discussions were made in almost empty halls, and the package of dual citizenship was adopted by 66 votes and was falsified.