Tweet
NO JUDGES HELD LIABLE AS A RESULT OF EUEOPAN COURT RULINGS VS. ARMENIA
tert.am
10.10.12
No judges in Armenia have been held accountable as a result of the
European Court of Human Rights rulings against the country, according
to a Judicial Department official.
Speaking to Tert.am, the head of the Department's International
Cooperation and Public Relations Service, Arsen Babayan, said
those rulings stemmed from conflicting provisions in the domestic
legislation and the European Convention of Human Rights, with the
Strasburg Court strictly guiding itself by the letter of law when
issuing a judicial act.
The local daily Haykakan Zhamanak said earlier this month that the
Court's rulings vs. Armenia have caused the Government to pay an
equivalent of ~@1,225 from the State Budget since 2007.
"In addition, there are over 1,000 complaints in the European court,
but only 47 have been satisfied. If we compare the ECtHR ruling vs
Germany, in this respect, they outnumber those against Armenia in
percentage terms," Babayan said.
Speaking of the conflicting provisions that cause the court to rule
against Armenia, Babayan pointed out to the Zhirayr Sefilyan case.
Sefilyan, who was a special detachment commander in Shoushi during
the Nagorno-Karabakh liberation war, was detained in December 2006
over charges of making public calls for changing the constitutional
order through violence. He remained in prison until June 2008.
The European Court ruled that the procedures of eavesdropping on
Sefilyan's phone conversations and keeping the activist in prison for
around eight months were implemented in violation of the Convention
which guarantees everyone's right to security and liberty of person
(Article 5), and respect for private and family life (Article 8).
Commenting on the ruling, Babayan said it resulted from discrepancies
between the Convention and the Armenian legislation.
Precedential rulings are now being used as a guideline to smooth over
the existing problems.
"And by the way, the ECtHR clearly refers to the Cassation Court
ruling in its decision," Babayan noted.
Asked whether the domestic courts' rulings might be motivated by
a political instruction, Babayan characterized such allegations as
baseless political statements. According to him, the rulings versus
Armenia do not mean anything, with the Court satisfying only a third
of the proceedings filed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
tert.am
10.10.12
No judges in Armenia have been held accountable as a result of the
European Court of Human Rights rulings against the country, according
to a Judicial Department official.
Speaking to Tert.am, the head of the Department's International
Cooperation and Public Relations Service, Arsen Babayan, said
those rulings stemmed from conflicting provisions in the domestic
legislation and the European Convention of Human Rights, with the
Strasburg Court strictly guiding itself by the letter of law when
issuing a judicial act.
The local daily Haykakan Zhamanak said earlier this month that the
Court's rulings vs. Armenia have caused the Government to pay an
equivalent of ~@1,225 from the State Budget since 2007.
"In addition, there are over 1,000 complaints in the European court,
but only 47 have been satisfied. If we compare the ECtHR ruling vs
Germany, in this respect, they outnumber those against Armenia in
percentage terms," Babayan said.
Speaking of the conflicting provisions that cause the court to rule
against Armenia, Babayan pointed out to the Zhirayr Sefilyan case.
Sefilyan, who was a special detachment commander in Shoushi during
the Nagorno-Karabakh liberation war, was detained in December 2006
over charges of making public calls for changing the constitutional
order through violence. He remained in prison until June 2008.
The European Court ruled that the procedures of eavesdropping on
Sefilyan's phone conversations and keeping the activist in prison for
around eight months were implemented in violation of the Convention
which guarantees everyone's right to security and liberty of person
(Article 5), and respect for private and family life (Article 8).
Commenting on the ruling, Babayan said it resulted from discrepancies
between the Convention and the Armenian legislation.
Precedential rulings are now being used as a guideline to smooth over
the existing problems.
"And by the way, the ECtHR clearly refers to the Cassation Court
ruling in its decision," Babayan noted.
Asked whether the domestic courts' rulings might be motivated by
a political instruction, Babayan characterized such allegations as
baseless political statements. According to him, the rulings versus
Armenia do not mean anything, with the Court satisfying only a third
of the proceedings filed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress