Based on the application
of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia, the Constitutional Court, by its March
16, 2021 decision ՍԴՈ-1585, stated that the National Assembly should provide
effective procedures to ensure that the judicial hearings in the courts within
a reasonable time.
The provision challenged
by the Human Rights Defender referred to the article 9 of the Constitutional Law
of the “Judicial Code of the Republic of Armenia” which that only establishes
the circumstances to be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of
the duration of judicial hearing.
According to the
Defender's position, the article does not stipulate the legal possibility of
restoring the violated right to a trial within a reasonable time. It appears that,
under the current legal regulations, the court hearing can be delayed for years,
with no consequences to the court.
In particular, The Office
of the Human Rights Defender summarized the complaints addressed to the Defender,
which concerned the judicial hearings in the courts within a reasonable time,
and the Defender published an extraordinary report on the issue. The special
report raised serious issues
For example, in a
criminal case, the defendant informed that the court hearings are constantly groundlessly
postponed; in total about 50 court hearings have not been held. In another case,
the judicial hearing has not been held for more than 8 years and a final court
decision on the case has not been made yet. According to another complaint,
court hearings are scheduled once every 2-3 or 3-6 months, and the appointed
sessions, according to the complainants, are groundlessly postponed, (there was
a case when 5 consecutive sessions were postponed) etc.
The Human Rights Defender
states that, that the state itself must organize its legal system so that the
courts can guarantee that everyone has a final decision on disputes over their
rights and obligations within a reasonable time. The state may provide various
mechanisms to fulfill this requirement; increase the number of judges, set a
maximum threshold for the period of judicial hearing or other means, which the
state also has the right to choose. However, if the state allows the duration
of the judicial hearing to exceed the reasonable duration required by the right
to a fair trial without taking any steps to develop the above mechanisms, the
state is responsible for delaying the result.
Even if we are guided by the
principle that the provision of procedures affecting a reasonable time depends
on the parties to the proceedings, their attitude and conduct does not relieve
the court of its obligation to a judicial hearing within a reasonable time.
This is required by Article 6(1) of the Convention and therefore, the European
Court of Human Rights.
Therefore, from the human
rights perspective, the overcrowding of the courts cannot justify the length of
the proceedings and the violation of the requirement of a reasonable time.
Everyone must have
effective means of restoring that right, and the state must create all the
necessary legal conditions for that.
Accordingly, in the
reasoning part of the mentioned decision the Constitutional Court drew the
attention of the National Assembly to the general problem of implementing the
demand to conduct a judicial hearing within a reasonable time, instructing to
provide the necessary, and sufficient guarantees to prevent the violation of
the essence of the right to a fair trial following the violation of the
requirement to conduct judicial hearings within a reasonable time.
In the concluding part of
the decision, the Constitutional Court considered the provisions of the
Judicial Code of Armenia challenged by the Human Rights Defender to be in
accordance with the Constitution.
Հայերեն
