The decision of the Council of Justice is considered a mere formality

On July 11, 2007, the Council of Justice of the Republic of Armenia examined the petition of the Minister of Justice Gevorg Danielyan that calls for a disciplinary review of Judges Y. Darbinyan, A. Hovhannisyan and A. Poghosyan of the Criminal Courts of Appeals and Judge Lernik Atanyan of the Syunik Provincial Court of First Instance. The above-mentioned judges had reviewed the case of army conscript Misha Harutunyan who was convicted of the murder of a fellow soldier. The Council of Justice denied the Minister's petition calling for disciplinary procedures against the three Criminal Courts of Appeals' judges and limited itself to mere review of the matter. M. Harutunyan's defense attorney, Hayk Alumyan was quite surprised that the Council of Justice denied the Justice Minister's petition and also by the fact that the Minister's appeal for a disciplinary review didn't include members of the Courts of Cassation as well.

The Council of Justice noted in its procedural review of the case that, “ The Criminal Courts of Appeal of the ROA attempted to minimize the violations surounding the sentence handed-down by the Court of First Instance and that during the proceedings of the Court of Appeals there were attempts to refute certain evidence that the Court of First Instance had found pertinent to arriving at a just resolution of the matter. In this manner the Criminal Courts of Appeal passed sentence based on other evidence and didn't take into account the appraisals relating to the sentence handed down by the Syunik Provincial Court of First Instance.

The Justice Minister petitioned the Council of Justice to propose to the President of the ROA that Judge Lernik Atanyan of the Syunik Provincial Court of the First Instance be stripped of his powers not only because gross violations of ROA constitutional law and international norms ratified by Armenia occurred under his watch, but also because the ROA suffered “material losses” and that its prestige and reputation had been damaged.

The Council of Justice also rejected this proposal of the Minister. It noted that when Judge Lernik Atanyan wrote the following in his verdict, “ Although the pretrial period has seen the use of violence, this was done with the purpose of discovering the truth “, the judge was actually admitting that torture had been used to obtain evidence and served as the basis for the formulation of subsequent criminal charges. Thus Judge Atanyan not only justified the use of torture against said individuals but also allowed that the laws and constitution of the ROA be violated and that internationally ratified principles be breached as well. The Council of Justice has severely reprimanded the judge and has cut his salary by 25% for a period of one year.

Attorney Hayk Alumyan believes that there was no option but to discipline Judge Atanyan for uttering such a remark, the likes of which haven't been heard since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. The attorney points out that the judge made this remark in the Spring of 2002 and that for the next three years straight he attempted to bring disciplinary charges against the judge by petitioning the Council of Justice, the Minister of Justice and other pertinent councils.

H. Alumyan says that, “ All of them denied my requests to institute a disciplinary review of the matter and responded with the following catch-phrase, ‘ In the pursuit of justice the court is independent and is subject only to the law'. But now that the European Court has issued a verdict in the case of “The People vs. Armenia” and has found that flagrant illegalities had occurred in the manner the case was handled they now understand that the judge in question must be held accountable.” The attorney believes that all of them, from the members of the Council of Justice to the Minister of Justice, collectively bear the stigma of also subscribing to the remarks made by Judge Atanyan since they themselves failed to reprimand him at the appropriate time.

Attorney Alumyan notes that while these remarks shocked all of us, we must not forget that the Courts of Appeal and Cassation have upheld the verdict. He points out that in its verdict theEuropean Courtmainly criticized the actions of the Courts of Appeal and Cassation and not those of the Court of First Instance. “ In its verdict theEuropean Courtrecognized that Point 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention had been essentially violated by the Court of Cassation. The verdict underlines the fact that all the courts handed down judgments based on such evidence and in their estimation this is where the violation occurred. Moreover, this was the focus of theEuropean Court's review of the case. Namely, did the judges of the superior courts make decisions based on inadmissible evidence?” the attorney adds. According to Alumyan, the Armenian government makes the argument that inadmissible evidence was only utilized in the Court of First Instance and that theEuropean Courtagrees with its findings that Courts of Appeal and Cassation made decisions based on evidence obtained through the use of torture.

Alumyan believes that to point an accusatory finger at the judge in the Court of First Instance signifies that they want to single out the weakest and most vulnerable amongst them and punish him for a remark they basically all co-sponsored. The attorney continues, “ This disciplinary punishment is a mere formality designed to create the impression that our government actively pursues and punishes those who break the law.”

Hayk Alumyan notes that he doesn't share the opinion that the current membership of the Council of Justice, which is mostly comprised of judges, has anything of benefit to contribute to the cause of justice. He says that to protect their own skins the judges purposefully ignore the mistakes of their colleagues since each believes he will commit the same mistakes tomorrow as well. “ If the issue is entirely left in the hands of the judges this cannot be considered a competent system and we're now reaping its fruits”, observed Mr. Alumyan who was referring to the above-mentioned judgments of the Council of Justice. Alumyan believes that the Council, at least in its initial stages, wants to show that the system works. He concludes by stating that in a few years it will become readily apparent that it was a mistake to fill the Council of Justice with only judges.