It is obvious that in a system of personalized autocracy, investigative bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts will never adopt decisions or take action against representatives and supporters of that regime. On the contrary, it is they themselves who commit unlawful acts at every turn. The branches of power do not balance or restrain one another; instead, they are excessively unrestrained and unchecked. That is precisely the situation in Armenia today.
Under such circumstances, a question arises: is it worth appealing to investigative and judicial bodies, fully aware that they are incapable of initiating any genuine legal process in such matters? Lawyers should probably answer that question. But I believe the answer is yes.
It is clear that I have no positive expectations from these institutions. Yet when even what is called “civil society” has largely aligned itself with Pashinyan (they gladly “visit the government” and receive various instructions), and when, among the existing institutions, only two groups continue to display civic integrity — journalists and lawyers — all violations must be documented for the future.
In Armenia, courts effectively ordain priests and bishops and appoint diocesan leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Church. It is obvious that challenging such glaringly unconstitutional decisions within domestic courts will yield no result — all those instances are in Pashinyan’s pocket. But the current authoritarian leader is not eternal under any circumstances, and after him legal acts must be adopted that will return the courts to the constitutional framework and, incidentally, to the norms accepted in civilized countries.
Read also
By the same logic, in my view, one should not be reassured by the fact that the preventive measure imposed on Bishop Mikael, Bishop Mkrtich, and Samvel Karapetyan is house arrest. Their prosecution is clearly unlawful, and house arrest is by no means an act of “humanism.”
We have appealed to the Anti-Corruption Committee regarding Pashinyan’s unlawful actions. Naturally, the committee “found” no elements of a crime. I believe that decision should be appealed — fully aware of the likely outcome.
In doing so, I hope, the contours of a genuinely law-based state will begin to emerge.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
