Member of the Constitutional Court, Kim Balayan’s statement made yesterday that the Constitutional Reforms Commission actually has not executed the decree of the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, to present a reform draft rather than a new Constitution caused some criticism. Some members of the Commission disputed the issue of whether Kim Balayan officially had the right to make such a statement, it was also qualified as a personal opinion.
Aravot.am asked Gevorg Danielyan, the member of Constitutional Reforms Commission, about the reasons that not a draft of amendments is presented but a new Constitution, Mr. Danielyan replied, “Naturally, the term of the “draft of Constitutional amendments” enshrined by RA President’s Decree No. 207-N (Clause 4, paragraph 2) dated September 4, 2013 about the “Establishment of a Constitutional Reforms Commission to the President of the Republic of Armenia” determines the boundaries of Commission.
At the same time, the term “reform” itself cannot be identified with the specific type of “draft of legislative act” as a result of reforms, amendments as well as new legal acts can be adopted in the legal act. In case of any consideration, preference is given to the option of amendments, moreover, the Articles 1, 2,, and 114 of the Constitution are left unchanged, which can be reviewed exclusively in case of adopting a new Constitution. In this case, the structure of the draft, purely in editing dimension, is not identical to the traditional structure of draft laws and other legal acts, but it is worth mentioning that they are not binding in the case of the Basic Law.”
Mr. Danielyan stressed that the draft is about making amendments in the Constitution, which comes to prove the argument that no reference was made to the aforementioned three Articles in terms of revising them, moreover, contextually, the fundamental provisions of the current Constitution are maintained, especially those that have never been problematic or controversial. Gevorg Danielyan concluded, “Certainly, extensive and contextually significant amendments were made, which, as well as the chosen structure, can cause a confusion and be accepted as a new Constitution, but in case of being discussed, the preference is given to the option of amendments.”
Read also
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
