LEGITIMACY ` A LEGAL CATEGORY
ARMEN TSATOURYAN

Hayots Ashkhar
Friday 7 March 2008

When one has no facts and nothing to say

The speeches and statements L. Ter-Petrosyan and his proponents made
in the Constitutional Court testify to the fact that those people are
still under the direct influence of the post-electoral rallies and the
subsequent events organized on March 1-2, so they confuse the legal
process of disputing the election results with political assessments
and speculations.
As we know, the Constitutional Court is examining the election
results. Whereas, L. Ter-Petrosyan’s speech delivered on March 5
contained no single word on their being falsified. No evidence was
given with regard to any specific action aiming to falsify the results
either in the pre-election period or on the voting day.
If, instead of disputing the election results, the appealing party
exercises its right to make a speech in Constitutional Court with the
purpose of criticizing the post-electoral atmosphere, then, as it is
common to say, it de facto admits the legitimacy of the specific
numbers recorded in favor of each candidate on February 19.
Among Mr. Ter-Petrosyan’s arguments, the only one, which is more or
less related to the whole pre-election period, is the fact that Prime
Minister S. Sargsyan performed his official duties during the
pre-election campaign, that’s to say, the issue under consideration is
the legitimacy of the registration of the given candidate.
The following question comes up: when is the time for disputing the
issue of the given candidate’s registration: after he holds a
convincing victory or right after he is registered as a candidate?
What’s more, the representatives of the international observation
missions were satisfied with the explanation given by the Ministry of
Justice with regard to this issue, and they admitted that the existing
legislation of Armenia allows the incumbent Prime Minister to remain in
office during the campaign.
Especially considering that the concept known as `civil service’
bears no relationship to a political position. This is also confirmed
by the very first article of the RA Law on Civil Service adopted on
December 4, 2001. Its provisions also apply to the Electoral Code
adopted on February 5, 1999. And Article 78 of the Electoral Code
concerns the obstacles to terminating the official duties, i.e. it is
purely dispsositive in nature, rather than imperative in nature.
Another extraordinary example of a political speculation is the
second `argument’ brought by L. Ter-Petrosyan, i.e. the reference to
the constitutional requirement on the impermissibility of imposing
martial law or a state of emergency during the whole period of holding
elections and examining the post-electoral claims. A question arises as
to why in that case the ex-President tried to settle the events of
March 1-2 only a few days after applying to the Constitutional Court,
thus creating a `discrepancy’ between the Constitution and time limits
of examining the post-electoral claims, a competence vested in the
Constitutional Court. Didn’t L. Ter-Petrosyan know that the
Constitutional Court did not have the right to go beyond the
established time limits for examining his claim? So, why did he violate
the country’s internal political stability, thus necessitating the
state of emergency?
Perhaps, with the purpose of insisting on the contrary now, i.e. the
media do not elucidate the trial in a proper manner, his
proponent-witnesses are arrested, and hence, there is only one choice
for the court: to declare the results of the elections null and void.
After the unsuccessful attempts of discrediting the election results
by such ridiculous `arguments’, L. Ter-Petrosyan arrived at the
following conclusion in his speech delivered on March 5, `I have no
idea how any decision made by the Constitutional Court in such
conditions will be accepted by me as an appellant, by the people and
the international community.’ And he also demanded that the proposals
on improving the political atmosphere in Armenia as enshrined in the EU
Chairmanship declaration dated March 4 be complied with.
Do these proposals have anything in common with the case examined by
the Constitutional Court, i.e. the legitimacy of the February 19
elections? Isn’t it clear to L. Ter-Petrosyan that by transferring the
legal issue to the domain of political speculations he fully guarantees
the rejection of his own `arguments’ by the Constitutional Court?
We believe that the issue is more than clear to L. Ter-Petrosyan.
This person has nothing on earth to say; that’s why, instead of making
statements at the Theatrical Square, he chooses the Constitutional
Court.