Tweet
WAS KOCHARYAN UNAWARE OF CONSTITUTION?
Lragir.am
08 July 06
Sedrak Baghdasaryan, resident of Buzand Street, the chair of Protection
for Victims of State Needs, Democracy NGO, said in an interview with
our news reporter that they wrote over 10 letters to Robert Kocharyan
telling him about the destructive consequences of the development of
the Center of Yerevan. Robert Kocharyan did not answer any of these
letters, however. Moreover, even the Kocharyan administration did not
answer. Sedrak Baghdasaryan says the letter was sent to the government,
from the government to the City Hall, from the City Hall to the Office
of Program Implementation. "My impression is that the best-educated,
the smartest person in our country is the head of the OPI."
However, it is at least strange that the OPI answers the last letter.
The letter was written May 26, 2006, in other words, after the
decision of the Constitutional Court recognizing it unconstitutional.
The victims of the state needs reminded Robert Kocharyan that the head
of state must guarantee observation of the Constitution and punish its
violation. The victims of state want to know why the president signed
an unconstitutional decision. Robert Kocharyan declined to answer,
which means that either he does not consider him president of people,
or he thinks it is not worthwhile to answer people.
R. Harutiunyan, the head of the OPI who answered the letter, informed
the victims of state needs that the president signed the decision
of the government in 2002, whereas the Constitutional Court defined
it as unconstitutional in 2006. "The person who signed the decision
could not foresee that these would be considered as against the
unconstitution." This is not a misprint. Either R. Harutiunyan has
discovered a new legal, though not so logical category, or he is a
little careless. Both are bad for R. Harutiunyan, who was charged
with the important task of writing a letter on behalf of the president.
And if R. Harutiunyan wants to say that the person who ratified
the decision could not predict that these decisions would be
considered unconstitutional, which is the same as incompliant with
the constitution, not knowing the law does not free from punishment.
After this decision of the Constitutional Court the chamber of
civilian cases of the Court of Appeal led by Arman Mkrtumyan did
not try the case of the victims of public needs, in other words,
it neglected the decision of the Constitutional Court.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Lragir.am
08 July 06
Sedrak Baghdasaryan, resident of Buzand Street, the chair of Protection
for Victims of State Needs, Democracy NGO, said in an interview with
our news reporter that they wrote over 10 letters to Robert Kocharyan
telling him about the destructive consequences of the development of
the Center of Yerevan. Robert Kocharyan did not answer any of these
letters, however. Moreover, even the Kocharyan administration did not
answer. Sedrak Baghdasaryan says the letter was sent to the government,
from the government to the City Hall, from the City Hall to the Office
of Program Implementation. "My impression is that the best-educated,
the smartest person in our country is the head of the OPI."
However, it is at least strange that the OPI answers the last letter.
The letter was written May 26, 2006, in other words, after the
decision of the Constitutional Court recognizing it unconstitutional.
The victims of the state needs reminded Robert Kocharyan that the head
of state must guarantee observation of the Constitution and punish its
violation. The victims of state want to know why the president signed
an unconstitutional decision. Robert Kocharyan declined to answer,
which means that either he does not consider him president of people,
or he thinks it is not worthwhile to answer people.
R. Harutiunyan, the head of the OPI who answered the letter, informed
the victims of state needs that the president signed the decision
of the government in 2002, whereas the Constitutional Court defined
it as unconstitutional in 2006. "The person who signed the decision
could not foresee that these would be considered as against the
unconstitution." This is not a misprint. Either R. Harutiunyan has
discovered a new legal, though not so logical category, or he is a
little careless. Both are bad for R. Harutiunyan, who was charged
with the important task of writing a letter on behalf of the president.
And if R. Harutiunyan wants to say that the person who ratified
the decision could not predict that these decisions would be
considered unconstitutional, which is the same as incompliant with
the constitution, not knowing the law does not free from punishment.
After this decision of the Constitutional Court the chamber of
civilian cases of the Court of Appeal led by Arman Mkrtumyan did
not try the case of the victims of public needs, in other words,
it neglected the decision of the Constitutional Court.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress