Interview with Michael Janssen, an Expert from the GRECO Secretariat

The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) published a report recently stressing that corruption remains an important problem for Armenian society, even though the fight against it has been high on the political agenda for years. The report specifically looks at the issue of preventing corruption among parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors. The judiciary in Armenia appears to be particularly prone to corruption, the report says, and to suffer from a lack of independence. There are also concerns about the lack of clear separation of powers, the weakness of the parliament and insufficient transparency in public decision-making.

GRECO specifically recommends that the rules on the acceptance of gifts by parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors, as well as on submitting regular asset declarations, on their control and enforcement be further developed and made more effective.  

Q: Among other propositions, the report states that “according to the authorities the establishment of the rules of ethics and of the Ethics Committee has already had a positive impact on MPs: they have started displaying a restrained attitude towards each other and in relationship with other persons; in particular, they have become more tolerant when communicating with journalists.” Yet, there was a recent another appalling abuse of a journalist by MP Mher Sedrakyan 

First of all, let me explain this part in the report concerning a tenet displaying a restrained attitude towards each other and more tolerant with communicating with journalists, that is based on the comments and information given by the authorities. And then of course there were some other views, which are also reflected in the report, which show that is still progress that need to be made, so the report clearly takes into account such different views on the matter, and that’s why GRECO’s report very much highlights that further measures are needed, like for example, implementing real code of conduct, drawn by MPs themselves, and introduce more effective supervisory mechanisms, which could be connected actually to code of conduct or not necessary, could also be just take a form of amendments to the rules of procedure for example, to have more effective sanctions and monitoring mechanisms. 

Now, I cannot comment on the particular case here, I don't have this responsibility and mandate here from the Council of Europe to go into such details, just to reflect on the situation that we encounter in the country globally and try to find some solutions and help the country concerned to get ahead. The report is quite clear. It is important to have more effective supervisory mechanisms also in the parliament. You know there is an Ethics Commission but until now it has not many cases and many results, and it cannot impose many sanctions apart from publishing some conclusions. So this is probably not good enough, and GRECO thus stresses that more needs to be done. 

Q: A number of media outlets demanded that the MP in question be punished and there were even demands requiring a termination of his deputy mandate. Don't you think the new version of the code of conduct should envisage more effective tools to defend journalists from such attacks and take measures to really put an end to their MP mandate? 

A termination of an MP mandate, of course, would be really the strictest measure possible. I think it is very important to have a regulation of sanctions, to start with lighter sanctions that could also be fines, or other things. Termination of a mandate would be really the very last resort. Ultimately, it’s up to the authorities of Armenia to find a good way, but sometimes it can also be counterproductive to have too harsh sanctions, which then cannot be applied in practice.   

Q: Can you bring any of examples from international practice in similar cases?

There are no clear standards internationally speaking, and this really depends very much on the particular country. One situation is quite clear, if an MP has been convicted in the past for criminal offences, then he should not be elected as a member of parliament, or if, of course, an MP commits a crime during his mandate, then the proceedings about the suspension of the mandate could start, but the question of immunity inevitably arises. But these are rather extreme cases and I am not 100 percent sure what this case you are referring to looks like. If there are some disciplinary matters, misbehavior, then the termination of the mandate would be probably too harsh. 

Q: Concerning “oligarchs” in the Armenian parliament, does the report suggest that these people should leave the parliament?

Not exactly.  Here again I must say that GRECO does not make so specific recommendations targeting individual persons but really the overall situation. And here the findings were that on one hand the rules in Armenia are quite strict, so MPs in Armenia are prohibiting from operating businesses during their mandate, they may not be engaged in paid activities with some exceptions, not to hold positions in commercial organizations and so on, and on the other hand, there is quite lot of evidence that these rules are not respected quite often in practice. So, the solution found by the constitution of Armenia is very severe that the mandate should be terminated if this rule is not obeyed. So, it’s not a GRECO proposition but in fact if the constitution is not respected that would have consequences. Now, this does not mean that businessmen cannot become elected as MPs and one must really clearly looking to the individual cases, but it is important to have transparency on these issues, to know exactly what are Parliamentarians are doing in their life apart from their mandate as MPs, and it is important that the rules are applied in practice. Here again there is no effective supervisory mechanisms, no one to really looking to the activities of the MPs. So, probably here more needs to be done in Armenia. 

Q: What is your expert opinion as to what will be the risks for Armenia if these business people stay and the plutocracy remains the dominant regime, given the increased role of the parliament after 2018?

The most important thing for GRECO is that the rules are obeyed and that must be ensured and there must be a proper mechanism to identify what is happening, what is the background of individual MPs, what are their activities, and if they are in conflict with the law, proper sanctions are applied, this is the most important. If everything is transparent and people, citizens want to elect such oligarchs, business people in the parliament, then they just have the right of course to do so, and GRECO would not suggest that there should be no business connections between MPs and the business community, which realistically speaking always exists. But there must be transparency. 

Q: However, the findings of the report suggest that because of these “oligarchs” in the Armenian parliament, citizens have lost confidence, which means that is not their will…  

This is a rather political question, and GRECO is not as such a political body, but we are giving technical advice and say: apparently there is a rule, which is there, but it does not really function, and afterwards it’s up to the Armenian society to draw a line and see who should be elected as a member of parliament. But for us the most important is the issue of transparency and that citizens know what candidates and MPs are doing in their life, what are their links to business, which interests are defended by them, do they defend by people or not or do they only defend their private business interests. Then must be clear to everybody, and then citizens would be in a situation to elect those people.

Q: Concerning bribes and gifts, it is widely known that judges and prosecutors with relatively low salaries that do not exceed 1 million drams possess millions of dollars in their back accounts. What surveillance technics should be applied to prevent such criminal practices?

There is a specific body established by Armenia, the Ethics Commission for High Ranking Officials. We understood in GRECO that there is a reform process going on and the Commission should get more power and also a possibility to impose fines in case of violations of the rules of non-declaration or declaration of false numbers. We very much hope, that this process will go on and this Commission will get more jurisdiction and possibilities to bring to light irregularities. For the time being, this is not really the case and as we understood it the Commission just has the right to see if the forms are completed by the judges and if they have responded to the questions, but the Commission would not be able to really conduct investigations. So, more needs to be done, and hopefully it is underway now. 

Regarding the issue of criminal persecution, if there are really serious cases of misbehavior, of fraud, better cooperation between this Commission and law enforcement bodies, prosecution and police is indispensable. 

Q: By the end of April 2017 the authorities of Armenia are to report back on measures taken to implement the 18 recommendations included in this report. Are there any sanctions envisaged in case of non-compliance?

Within one year, Armenian will have to report back on the actions taken for each individual recommendation. Then GRECO will draw a compliance report. This is an ongoing procedure, it will not stop here with just one report, but we will see, if the overall picture of implementation is satisfactory or not.

If the result is relatively good, the procedure will go on, there will be the next report. Armenia will be urged to carry on the reforms. This is a standard procedure taken by the member countries. If the result is unsatisfactory, then a so-called non-compliance procedure is launched -  a specific procedure, which means first of all that the country has to report back every six months, so there is more pressure to show results. And there will be diplomatic steps afterwards.

Interview conducted by Oksana Musaelyan