Tweet
WILL SARGSYAN SIGN LAW ON STATE OF EMERGENCY?
Zhanna Alexanyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/society25782.html
Published: 17:28:40 - 11/04/2012
Yesterday the Army in Reality Initiative organized a discussion on the
draft law on the legal framework of the state of emergency. The law
was adopted by the National Assembly and presented to the president
who will sign the law after which the law will enter into force.
The speakers pinpointed that the law is unconstitutional and listed all
the ensuing dangers and consequences, trying to draw Serzh Sargsyan's
attention to them and stop him from signing the law.
Legal counselor Vahe Grigoryan dwelled on the key argument of the
advocates of the law - the positive opinion of the Committee of Venice.
"This argument voiced at different levels is not true, namely the
Committee of Venice has never considered the essential difference
between martial law and state of emergency, the clear distinction
in the RA Constitution between the martial law and the state of
emergency."
Vahe Grigoryan uses the word "weird" for the "mania of Armenian
government officials to rush to the Committee of Venice" whenever
an important issue is there, and regardless the opinion, it is said
to be positive. In the meantime, the lawyer says, only one body is
competent to judge constitutionality. It is the Constitutional Court,
and it would be good to know the opinion of the Committee of Venice
on this issue, the advocate said, noting that the Committee of Venice
expressed concern about some points which were, however, ignored by
the advocates of the law.
The next important issue brought up by the lawyer is the responsibility
to participate in the defense of the Republic of Armenia which
was not discussed by the Committee of Venice and the Armenian
parliament. Invoking Article 46 of the Constitution which states the
responsibility of every citizen to participate in the defense of the
homeland, Vahe Grigoryan says the National Assembly thinks defense
involves the deployment of a conscript inside the country which
leads to the repressive idea of internal enemy. "A soldier aged 18
is drafted to protect his homeland but is deployed against his own
parents. We already have such experience," he says.
The human rights activist Artak Zeinalyan believes that the law
is adopted for one purpose, to use it to hold on to usurped power
through violence.
Richard Giragossian, chairman of the Center for Regional Studies,
presented an analysis of the law and the international best practices
noting that the law was adopted hastily, immediately prior to the
parliamentary elections and a year before the presidential elections,
arousing doubts.
Karen Hakobyan, head of the department of legislative analysis and
improvement of the Ministry of Justice, tried to argue with the
opponents of the law, reading the opinion of the minister of justice.
Vahe Grigoryan asked him which provision of the Constitution empowers
the president to deploy the armed forces in a state of emergency. "I
do not remember the exact article," said the head of the MoJ department
of analysis and improvement of legislation.
Lieutenant colonel Varuzhan Avetisyan, lawyer, says not only is the
law unconstitutional but also it is a shame that this discussion
takes place at all because the overall power of the army has been
reduced because the army has become a Praetorian Guard.
Every state has enough police resource to protect constitutional order,
and if this force is not sufficient, it is a sign of systemic crisis,
he says. It indicates that the representative of the government lacks
legitimacy if there is a need to deploy additional forces to support
the police force. He hopes that the president of Armenia will not
sign the law and will have good sense to draw conclusions.
As to the text of the law, Varuzhan Avetisyan thinks it is badly
written, poorly structured, contains a lot of linguistic and
logical contradictions and errors, is an example of professional
irresponsibility, he says.
Zhanna Alexanyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/society25782.html
Published: 17:28:40 - 11/04/2012
Yesterday the Army in Reality Initiative organized a discussion on the
draft law on the legal framework of the state of emergency. The law
was adopted by the National Assembly and presented to the president
who will sign the law after which the law will enter into force.
The speakers pinpointed that the law is unconstitutional and listed all
the ensuing dangers and consequences, trying to draw Serzh Sargsyan's
attention to them and stop him from signing the law.
Legal counselor Vahe Grigoryan dwelled on the key argument of the
advocates of the law - the positive opinion of the Committee of Venice.
"This argument voiced at different levels is not true, namely the
Committee of Venice has never considered the essential difference
between martial law and state of emergency, the clear distinction
in the RA Constitution between the martial law and the state of
emergency."
Vahe Grigoryan uses the word "weird" for the "mania of Armenian
government officials to rush to the Committee of Venice" whenever
an important issue is there, and regardless the opinion, it is said
to be positive. In the meantime, the lawyer says, only one body is
competent to judge constitutionality. It is the Constitutional Court,
and it would be good to know the opinion of the Committee of Venice
on this issue, the advocate said, noting that the Committee of Venice
expressed concern about some points which were, however, ignored by
the advocates of the law.
The next important issue brought up by the lawyer is the responsibility
to participate in the defense of the Republic of Armenia which
was not discussed by the Committee of Venice and the Armenian
parliament. Invoking Article 46 of the Constitution which states the
responsibility of every citizen to participate in the defense of the
homeland, Vahe Grigoryan says the National Assembly thinks defense
involves the deployment of a conscript inside the country which
leads to the repressive idea of internal enemy. "A soldier aged 18
is drafted to protect his homeland but is deployed against his own
parents. We already have such experience," he says.
The human rights activist Artak Zeinalyan believes that the law
is adopted for one purpose, to use it to hold on to usurped power
through violence.
Richard Giragossian, chairman of the Center for Regional Studies,
presented an analysis of the law and the international best practices
noting that the law was adopted hastily, immediately prior to the
parliamentary elections and a year before the presidential elections,
arousing doubts.
Karen Hakobyan, head of the department of legislative analysis and
improvement of the Ministry of Justice, tried to argue with the
opponents of the law, reading the opinion of the minister of justice.
Vahe Grigoryan asked him which provision of the Constitution empowers
the president to deploy the armed forces in a state of emergency. "I
do not remember the exact article," said the head of the MoJ department
of analysis and improvement of legislation.
Lieutenant colonel Varuzhan Avetisyan, lawyer, says not only is the
law unconstitutional but also it is a shame that this discussion
takes place at all because the overall power of the army has been
reduced because the army has become a Praetorian Guard.
Every state has enough police resource to protect constitutional order,
and if this force is not sufficient, it is a sign of systemic crisis,
he says. It indicates that the representative of the government lacks
legitimacy if there is a need to deploy additional forces to support
the police force. He hopes that the president of Armenia will not
sign the law and will have good sense to draw conclusions.
As to the text of the law, Varuzhan Avetisyan thinks it is badly
written, poorly structured, contains a lot of linguistic and
logical contradictions and errors, is an example of professional
irresponsibility, he says.