Dear Members of Parliament, I would recommend you refrain from making imperative statements when it comes to serious issues regarding the law. You can at least consult with the lawyers of the Staff of the National Assembly (I myself am ready to give you advice on voluntary basis). This is not only internationally accepted, but is also considered a working style of a civilized parliament. This is what former justice minister, former member of the Supreme Judicial Council Gevorg Danielyan wrote on his Facebook page.
He particularly wrote the following: “For instance, don’t insist that the rights of a particular social group can’t contradict the rights of another social group and be exercised at the expense of the latter.
They can contradict, and in particular, the rights and interests of children are protected as a priority (part 2 of Article 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia). Don’t insist that there is no discrepancy between rights. There is a discrepancy. Moreover, sometimes there is sharp collision, and in such cases, the preferred right is predetermined through a rather intricate system, the main axis of which is the application of restrictions that is not uniform, but distinguished under the principle of proportionality.
Taking into consideration the fact that you are all very busy, I would recommend reading a short study translated into Armenian, and that study is Michael Zaks’ “Basics of the Universal Doctrine of Fundamental Rights in Germany”, especially the section entitled “Collisions of Basic Law”.”