0 8000 12 11

The civil society is deeply concerned over hindering the attorneys’ professional activities, including use of violence under the cases of ‘Sasna Tsrer’ group, ‘Zhirayr Sefilyan and friends’ and ‘Nork armed group’.

Jointly with the judicial system, the law-enforcement bodies interfere with the attorneys’ activities by thus limiting the possibility for effective protection of the rights of persons with the status of defendants that in its turn leads to violation of their right to a fair trial. While interfering with an attorney’s professional activity is a criminal act, no one is held liable for it.

Such hindrance persists at all the hearings on these cases and is displayed by both brutal beating of clients at a very close distance from their attorneys and seizing the correspondence between attorneys and their clients in the courtroom, and by use of violence by police officers, arbitrary inspection by bailiffs and arbitrary application of judicial sanctions by judges.  

The greatest concern is caused by the use of violence by police against attorneys. Particularly, on June 28, police officers used violence against attorneys Lusine Sahakyan and Ara Zakaryan by not allowing them to go to the police station and provide legal assistance to one of ‘Sasna Tsrer’ group supporters gathered in the court yard, who was apprehended.

The bailiffs unlawfully and arbitrarily demand to inspect the attorneys under the above cases before they enter the courtroom, whereas no such inspection had ever been conducted before. During the inspection, the attorneys are required to empty and show publicly the contents of their pockets and bags. While the Judicial Department considers this measure personal inspection as set under the Judicial Code, the community of attorneys considers it illegal search.

Also, the inspection aims to detect any possible forbidden items but there is no legal act providing any list of such prohibited items or describing them. At the court hearings on such cases, attorneys are arbitrarily subjected to judicial sanctions targeting the attorneys criticizing the independence and impartiality of the court. Moreover, when ruling on applying a judicial sanction, the judge does not make it possible for the attorney to present his/her objections.

Judicial sanctions are also applied against attorneys if they refuse to be inspected before entering the courtroom or leave it without the judge’s permission. First, the attorneys refusing inspection are not allowed to enter the courtroom and refusing inspection is qualified as disobeying a legal order of a bailiff; on this basis, an application is submitted to the Chamber of Advocates to impose disciplinary liability on the attorney.

Second, judicial sanctions are also applied against the attorneys leaving the courtroom without the judge’s permission. Whereas, the attorneys under this case argue that their clients did not authorize them to attend any court hearing in their absence and therefore when their clients are taken out of the courtroom, they also leave it as assigned by their clients.

The civil society representatives are concerned that by imposing judicial sanctions against individual attorneys, the judges try to replace them with public defenders who would cooperate with the authorities and would not provide the defendants with adequate protection in such a politically sensitive case.

The exercise of the right to a fair trial and the freedom of expression of attorneys is directly linked with a person’s constitutional right to legal assistance; therefore, hindering an attorney’s activity in such ways violates the person’s right to a fair trial.

Based on the above, we demand that:  

• the Police stops any interference with the professional activity of the attorneys as well as initiates criminal proceedings on all the cases of such interference and use of violence;
• the Judicial Department stops arbitrary and unlawful searches of the attorneys and takes its public safety actions in accordance with the law;
• the Chamber of Advocates takes on a most efficient and independent role in protection of the attorneys’ interests by detailed examination of the reasoning and lawfulness of all the applications on disciplinary sanctions.

‘Biosophia’ NGO;

Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation NGO;

Yerevan Press Club;  

Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center;

‘Asparez’ Journalists’ Club;

Europe Inlaw

‘For Equal Rights’ Educational Center NGO; 

Helsinki Committee of Armenia

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor;

Armenian Constitutional Right-Protective Centre (ACRPC)

Journalists For Human Rights;  

Union of Informed Citizens;  

Rights Protection Without Borders NGO

‘Khoran Ard’ NGO;

Committee to Protect Freedom of Speech;

New Generation Humanitarian NGO;  

‘Public Information and Need of Knowledge’ NGO;

Society Without Violence NGO; 

Open Society Foundations-Armenia;

Civic Youth Centre of Ijevan;

‘LogoS’ Human Rights Defense NGO;

Helsinki Association;

Spitak Helsinki Group human rights NGO;  

‘Center of Economic Law” 

Vanadzor Civic Youth Center;  

Ara Gharagyozyan, attorney;

Hrach Kocharyan, attorney;

Tigran Hayrapetyan, attorney;

Hayk Alumyan, attorney.