Epress.am News from Armenia
About 100 attorneys were protesting a Council of Justice decision outside the RA Court of Cassation near the Chamber of Advocates of the Republic of Armenia today.
Their protest was tied to the following incident: On Jun. 22, Judge Samvel Mnatsakanyan of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Avan and Nor-Nork Administrative Districts of Yerevan sustained a motion by Albert Khachatryan’s attorney and allowed the use of bail as an alternative precautionary measure. Two days later, RA Court of Cassation Chair Arman Mkrtumyan appealed to the Council of Justice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Judge Mnatsakanyan, while the Council of Justice, in turn, appealed to RA President Serzh Sargsyan.
Attorney Lusine Sahakyan informed journalists that, in the protestors’ opinion, the judge is being reprimanded because he did not receive permission from the cassation court to recognize bail as permissible.
“Otherwise it’s not logical for us why two days later Arman Mkrtumyan is appealing to the disciplinary committee of the Council of Justice and the Council of Justice makes such a decision, so that he is stripped of his power. This system of approval has to stop finally,” she said.
According to Sahakyan, the Council of Justice decision states that the judge didn’t give reasons for his judicial act.
“But justifying judicial acts is not widespread in the Republic of Armenia; this question has been repeatedly raised and people are imprisoned without a justified act and no one is held accountable for this,” she said, adding that such a way of working has to come to an end.
During the protest, attorneys showed reporters the contents of a letter that RA Chamber of Advocates Chair Ruben Sahakyan is preparing to send to Arma Mkrtumyan. In the letter, Ruben Sahakyan depicts the decision to strip the judge of his power as creating an atmosphere of intolerance.
Sahakyan also proposed that Arman Mkrtumyan issue disciplinary proceedings against also a number of other judges who also haven’t given reasons for their judicial acts.