“It was just a figment that the European Court decisions are part of RA legislation”, – so responded human rights defender Avetik Ishkhanyan to the question of Aravot.am of whether the application of the European case law is exercised in Armenia at a proper level. Referring to the fact that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are a component part of the RA legislation as precedent law, and in any case, the ECHR precedent can be cited, Mr. Ishkhanyan expressed the following concern, “The courts, as a rule, are rejecting the petitions commenting that the factual circumstances do not match. De jure, the precedential decisions are part of the RA legislation, however, de facto, they do not have any absolute value, as the judicial acts are determined not by law, but by discretion.” As an example, Mr. Ishkhanyan brought the verdict by the case of “A1+”, when the decision was made, in addition to compensation, the violation should also be removed, which was not done. Basically, also due to the fact that the cases against Armenia in ECHR constitute a big number. This year, number of applications at the European Court against Armenia is more than a thousand. In the conversation with Aravot.am, the judge Alvina Gyulumyan, representing Armenia at ECHR, commented on the fact as follows, “Most of them are submitted by Azeris, who are deprived from the occupied territories and the issue of their property is raised.” We asked Ms. Gyulumyan whether the fact that there are numerous applications against Armenia does not indicate at the ECHR that there are numerous problems associated with the European case law in Armenia. He responded as follows, “These problems are available in any country. It’s another question of what actions are implemented in a country to prevent it.” Ms. Gyulumyan also informed that out of 46 verdicts of the European Court against Armenia 20 refer to violation personal immunity right, from which, in 16 cases, the right to fair trial was violated. She expressed the hope that upon serious consideration of these verdicts, the RA judicial system has made appropriate conclusion.
The fact that the number of applications to the ECHR against Armenia is reduced, Ms. Gyulumyan is commenting as follows, “Often our citizens are not informed to the best about such possibility. Unfortunately, I am far from thinking that everything is well in our country, therefore, the number of applications to the ECHR against Armenia is reduced. On the other hand, we can say that our attorneys work well. According to statistics, the European Court considers 80 percent of the applications submitted by Armenia subject for discussion, which shows that the number of unfounded applications submitted by Armenia to the European Court seems to be reduces, whereas a few years ago the situation was different.”
Ms. Gyulumyan referred to two sonorous cases at the ECHR: “Khachatryan and others against Armenia” and “Melikyan against Armenia”. The first one was about the criminal prosecution against a person who avoided the alternative military service, in the case when criminal responsibility was not designed at the time. The second one refers to the fact that no legislature was found by domestic legislation towards the citizen who wanted to appeal the government decision, where he could defend his civil right in any way.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
