Tweet
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NOT VALUABLE FROM LEGAL PERSPECTIVE: ALAVERDYAN
Tert.am
16:55 ~U 13.01.10
Heritage Party parliamentary faction secretary Larisa Alaverdyan
considered yesterday's Constitutional Court decision, from a legal
perspective, not valuable and divided. The MP expressed this opinion
upon Tert.am's request to comment on yesterday's decision connected
with the Armenian-Turkish Protocols.
According to Alaverdyan, the Constitutional Court is the only court
with the ability to survey the issue in its entirety, but the Court
discussed the issue in fragments; that is, it made a decision on the
issue reviewing only the text of the Protocols. In the Heritage Party
MP's opinion, apart from simply discussing the text, the Constitutional
Court should have reviewed the meaning of the Protocols, comparing
them with international rights and the political situation, which it
didn't do.
In Alaverdyan's words, the main text in the Protocols allows one to
unequivocaly say that a few tenets of the Protocols contradict the
Constitution. For instance, according to the MP, there's a reference
in the Constitutional Court's decision to a clause in the Declaration
of Independence that Armenian Genocide recognition will continue to
remain a part of Armenia's foreign policy.
Referring to another point that contradicts the Constitution,
Alaverdyan highlighted the clause on borders. In her opinion, with
these Protocols, Armenia creates a precedent when it recognizes
illegal, unlawful borders with another country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Tert.am
16:55 ~U 13.01.10
Heritage Party parliamentary faction secretary Larisa Alaverdyan
considered yesterday's Constitutional Court decision, from a legal
perspective, not valuable and divided. The MP expressed this opinion
upon Tert.am's request to comment on yesterday's decision connected
with the Armenian-Turkish Protocols.
According to Alaverdyan, the Constitutional Court is the only court
with the ability to survey the issue in its entirety, but the Court
discussed the issue in fragments; that is, it made a decision on the
issue reviewing only the text of the Protocols. In the Heritage Party
MP's opinion, apart from simply discussing the text, the Constitutional
Court should have reviewed the meaning of the Protocols, comparing
them with international rights and the political situation, which it
didn't do.
In Alaverdyan's words, the main text in the Protocols allows one to
unequivocaly say that a few tenets of the Protocols contradict the
Constitution. For instance, according to the MP, there's a reference
in the Constitutional Court's decision to a clause in the Declaration
of Independence that Armenian Genocide recognition will continue to
remain a part of Armenia's foreign policy.
Referring to another point that contradicts the Constitution,
Alaverdyan highlighted the clause on borders. In her opinion, with
these Protocols, Armenia creates a precedent when it recognizes
illegal, unlawful borders with another country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress