Taking into account the legal positions expressed in this document …
[ 2010/01/24 | 10:22 ]
“While addressing the press today, the head of the faction of the Republican Party of Armenia, Galust Sahakyan, said that the decision of the Constitutional Court on the Armenia-Turkey protocols was only that they are in compliance with the constitution; other aspects, according to Sahakyan, cannot be mandatory for the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia.” www.aysor.am, 20 January, 2010
One sometimes gets the impression that our legislators are not aware of the laws which they themselves have passed. The law of the Republic of Armenia on the Constitutional Court (2006) outright codifies that, “Decisions taken directly on cases of the Constitutional Court are mandatory for all State and local self-government bodies, their officials, as well as for individuals and legal entities throughout the territory of the Republic of Armenia” [Article 61(5)].
Accordingly, it is unquestionably plain and clear that the decision on the Armenia-Turkey protocols (of the 10th of January, 2010) is mandatory for the National Assembly as a State body, and is also mandatory for deputies of the National Assembly as individuals. It is also mandatory for the president of the Republic of Armenia (as Head of State) and the foreign ministry of the Republic of Armenia (as the agency of the government with the corresponding purview) as legal entities, as well as for Serge Sargsyan and Edouard Nalbandyan as individuals within the territory of the Republic of Armenia.
It is necessary to keep in mind that the law on the Constitutional Court has laid out responsibility as follows: “Not fulfilling a decision of the Constitutional Court, fulfilling it inadequately or hindering its fulfillment shall be cause for responsibility as defined by law” [Article 66].
Now let us have a look at the decision made by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia. Many would like to present it as if the Constitutional Court simply decided that “the obligations codified in the protocols comply with the constitution of the Republic of Armenia”. This is not at all the case. The Constitutional Court did not take some abstract decision, but a decision with certain essential reservations, “based on the results of examining the case, taking into account the legal positions expressed in this decision and …”. That is to say, the decision is a decision all right, but only by “taking into account the legal positions expressed in this decision”. Without those positions, the decision ceases to be so.
Consequently, the representative of the president of the Republic of Armenia, in accordance with the requirements of the fifth clause of Article 61 of the law of the Republic of Armenia on the Constitutional Court, is obliged to present the protocols in question for ratification to the National Assembly now with the reservations as defined by the legal positions codified in the corresponding decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia. To do otherwise would be in violation of the law cited above, in which case the provision of the “responsibility as defined by law” in Article 66 of the same law would have to be invoked.
Ara Papian
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
20 January, 2010
