In order to deprive a deputy of his or her immunity, the Prosecutor General must come to parliament and get the consent of the National Assembly. This norm exists in the legislation of both Armenia and dozens of other countries. What is the meaning of that? It is clear not to hinder the political activity of the legislators, because the executive power can always be tempted to restrict the freedom of opponents through criminal cases.
Therefore, imprisoning a deputy should be a complicated process that requires parliamentary discussion. High school students know (at least they should) about this basic, non-misleading provision. It is unlikely that this legal norm would not have been known to the prosecutor’s office staff and judges. It is even a little surprising that there was a need for a comment from the Constitutional Court on such an issue. With the same success, the deputies can ask the Constitutional Court whether a citizen can be convicted twice for the same crime, or whether the presumption of innocence works in Armenia. Of course, it was not ruled out that the Constitutional Court would give vague wording on such a simple issue, devoid of legal nuances, on the immunity of the deputies. Fortunately, that did not happen.
Proponents of this case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. But, putting aside the presumption of the same innocence, let me remind you of how our law enforcement officers treat election crimes in particular. Do you remember when Gagik Tsarukyan announced that the government should resign, it quickly “turned out” that the Prosperous Armenia Party was distributing election bribes during the elections, and Tsarukyan was not paying taxes. What happened to those accusations? They vanished because the PAP leader no longer demands Pashinyan’s resignation. This is all you need to know about criminal charges as well as law enforcement. As before 2018, they are dictated from “above” who to “arrest” and who not.
On the other hand, the government’s accusations of using administrative resources do not sound very convincing after these local elections. The people who “worked” for the RPA are now doing the same for the Civil Contract. As Mussolini said, “Our friends and relatives are allowed everything, the laws are for our opponents.”
Read also
Aram Abrahamyan
