0 8000 12 11

RA Human Rights Defender: “There are no sufficient grounds to challenge the NA Decree of October 5, 2015 before the RA Constitutional Court.” As already mentioned, the HCA Vanadzor had applied to the RA Human Rights Defender to appeal the RA NA Decree on Granting Consent to the Referendum on Constitutional Amendments at the RA Constitutional Court. The response letter of October 19, 2015 stated that there were no sufficient grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the NA Decree. The HRD noted that the NA Decree as such constituted no direct restriction of human and civil rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the HRD makes an unnatural distinction between NA Decree and the content of the document to which it granted consent. It appears quite interesting how the HRD would react to the cases below: suppose the NA granted consent to referendum of the deputies’ initiative to make changes to the Criminal Code, namely applying death penalty in the RA. Or, for example, suppose the NA granted consent to the referendum of the RA President’s initiative to include the Republic of Armenia in the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Russian Federation. Should the HRD in its capacity of a constitutional and essentially an independent agency show a formalistic approach in such cases finding that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge before the Constitutional Court NA decrees on granting consent to such referenda? We hereby believe that the HRD showed an artificial and insubstantial approach to the NA Decree on consent to referendum of regulations restricting the human rights and fundamental freedoms. Perhaps, by doing so, the HRD avoids the qualification “failure” already in use. Regretfully, we have to admit that in Armenia, there is a pattern practice for state institutes to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duties when it comes to issues of vital importance for the state and the society. Once the Constitutional Court refused to consider our application on the constitutionality of Serzh Sargsyan’s unilateral decision on joining the Eurasian Economic Union, by thus refusing to perform its direct and immediate functions to protect the RA Constitution. Finally, it is noteworthy, that the Human Rights Defender, instead of deciding either to admit or dismiss the complaint based on the application, in compliance with Article 11, RA Law on Human Rights Defender, merely responded to the application.