CC WENT TO CONSULTATION ROOM

sd
01:30 pm | February 23, 2010

Politics

Head of the legal department at the National Assembly and defendant
of the claim by "A1" at the Constitutional Court Ashot Khachatryan
believes that the CC will quash the claim by "A1+".

"A1+" demands that the CC recognize Part 1 of Article 204/28 of the
Civil Trial Code that prohibits RA citizens from exercising their
right to defense in a trial and fulfill the verdicts reached by the
European Court in Armenia as anti-constitutional.

"The CC has already recognized Part 1 of the article as
anti-constitutional and that served as grounds for us to petition the
CC to quash the case," Ashot Khachatryan told "A1+". Accepting Part 1
of Article 204/28 of the Civil Trial Code as grounds, the Cassation
Court refused to fulfill the demand of the European Court’s verdict
favoring "A1+" in June 2008.

So, you find that the Cassation Court accepted Part 1 of Article 204/28
of the Civil Trial Code to impede the fulfillment of the European
Court’s verdict favoring "A1+" as an anti-constitutional norm as
grounds? In response, Ashot Khachatryan avoided responding and said:
"Let’s wait for the court’s decision."

The high-level court, that is, the CC, is examining the claim of
"A1+" through a written procedure. In the previous trial where the
NA representative claimed that the CC had already recognized Part
1 of Article 208/24 of the Civil Trial Code as anti-constitutional,
President of the CC Gagik Harutyunyan demanded explanations from him
as to why the anti-constitutional norm had remained in the code to
this day. Not receiving any explanation from the NA representative
today, the CC went to the consultation room.

In the previous trial, defendant, Head of the Legal Division at
the National Assembly Ashot Khachatryan announced that the CC had
already recognized Part 1 of Article 204/28 of the Civil Trial Code as
anti-constitutional; in other words, the Cassation Court had denied
the claim filed by "A1+", accepting the already non-existing norm as
a basis.

Representatives of the case of "A1+" Artak Zeynalyan and Ara Ghazaryan
claimed that the CC had not recognized Part 1 of Article 204/28
of the Civil Trial Code as anti-constitutional. "Otherwise, the CC
wouldn’t have accepted the claim by "A1+" as a case. I repeat-this
is not just the issue of "A1+". This will be a strategic decision
that will solve the issue of fulfilling all the verdicts reached by
the European Court in Armenia," said Artak Zeynalyan.