News
Newsfeed
News
Thursday
October 29
USD
492.71
EUR
578.69
RUB
6.31
ME-USD
0.01
Show news feed

Many of our positions have been confirmed also through the ECHR's advisory opinion. Aram Vardevanyan, an attorney of Armenia’s second President Robert Kocharyan, wrote about this on his Facebook page. He added as follows:

I would like to present, in short, in my assessment, some of the starting points of the ECHR's advisory opinion.

1) The ECHR has specified that if the norms of the Constitution are referred to through the Criminal Code, they must be clear and predictable, including in terms of the elements of a crime. The wording of such a blanket norm cannot be such that the scope of the act is expanded. Our position has always been that [Article] 300.1 [of the Criminal Code] does not have that clarity and predictability, including in terms of the scope of the act, and cannot.

2) Article 300.1’s blanket norms—the articles of the Constitution—were amended in 2015 through a referendum, effectively excluding its clarity, stability, and predictability in relation to the alleged act in 2008.

3) The ECHR has recorded that there is no single rule of retroactive effect, but the Court has always given importance to domestic judicial practice. The ECHR has also noted that the norms that toughen the crime cannot have retroactive effect, and that this issue should be addressed on the basis of the principle of concretization. We all know, and we have mentioned about it, that there is already an internal judicial practice in the Republic of Armenia—in the case of the 7—when 300.1 was considered a new crime, with aggravating nature, and was not applicable. Therefore, in this case, too, the ECHR has recorded what we have repeatedly stated. We have presented all our positions based on the very principle of concretization, including the relevant petition to the CC [Constitutional Court].

4) The ECHR has found that 1-2 questions, which were referring to the matter of general interpretation of the principle of legal certainty, were generally worded, and it did not answer separately. However, the ECHR actually referred to them within the framework of the third matter.

!
This text available in   Հայերեն and Русский
Print
Read more:
All
Photos