The
Human Rights Defender has published a new Ad-Hoc Report about the manual
distribution of court cases to judges.
Our
inquiries in the judicial system and to lawyers, the complaints addressed to
the Human Rights Defender, and the private interviews held with persons
deprived of their liberty confirm that the situation is concerning, with
dangerous precedents to constitutional rights.
According
to reliable alarming-calls, for example in the Administrative Court, the
President of the Court himself decides the judges of the five-judge panel at
his own discretion, without any specific criteria. This also refers to the
inclusion of the same judges in the judicial panels, a practice which is often
repeated. The issue also refers to exceptionally sensitive issues, such as the
cases challenging the decisions on whether or not to register candidates based
on the results of the local self-governing bodies elections or the legality of
normative legal acts.
According
to alarming-calls addressed to the Office of the Human Rights Defender, the head
of staff of the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction also distributes
court cases to judges, although there are no fixed criteria even for the
President of the court. The justification mentioned is that the President of
the court, both physically and professionally cannot distribute so many cases.
Moreover,
the demand for the distribution of the court cases based on the alphabetical
order of judges is not observed. In another case, the principle of random
distribution of court cases is not observed.
For
a significant amount of time, certain judges have not considered cases of
certain categories (for example cases which are complicated, are sensitive, and
are of interest to the public), due to the fact that such cases are not
distributed to these judges. This situation is dangerous not only in terms of
discrimination between judges or their "judicial isolation", but also
in terms of systemic threats to human rights, etc. This can also lead to the
unacceptable reliance of judges on the presidents of the courts.
Moreover,
before applying to the Constitutional Court, the Office of the Defender had
made inquiries from the presidents of the courts, however none of them
demonstrated the existence of criteria or presented evidence that the
alphabetical order was observed.
Who
can guarantee that by distributing manually instead of an automated computer
system, external interference by or on the presidents of the courts?
The
Human Rights Defender has applied to the Constitutional Court in relation to
this issue, challenging certain provisions of the Judicial Code and the ԲԴԽ-16-Ն-6
decision of the Supreme Judicial Council, and has distributed a specific
statement on the issue.
The
Ad-Hoc Report has also raised the issue that there are uncertain legislative regulations,
and the fact that these regulations have received such manifestation and
applications that they have caused serious issues to constitutional rights.
With
concrete examples, and analysis based on international legal regulations, The
Office of the Defender has clearly demonstrated the situations and
interpretations that pose a serious threat to constitutional rights in the
absence of guaranteeing legislative regulations, and the dangerous consequences
of interventions by criminal prosecution bodies on the entire judicial system
of Armenia. Practical situations of violation of constitutional rights are
demonstrated in the Report as well.
Հայերեն
