This Article in Armenian

By the initiation of the RA government RA National Assembly adopted draft law on
“Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code” that gives the judge a right to
conduct the court trial in his absence. According to the already adopted draft
law that enters into force on March 1 if the accused causes challenges to the
regular procedure of the court trial and does not comply with the orders of the
judge, the judge can send him out from the courtroom and continue the trial
without his presence, however, the decision is announced in the presence of the
accused or is handed him over immediately upon the announcement of the decision.
According to Gevorg Danielyan, RA Minister of Justice, the authors of the draft
law have an objective to improve judicial system, and the practice of sending
the accused out from the courtroom is carried out in a number of countries.
According to Danielyan when the accused is sent out from the courtroom the trial
will be continued in the presence of his attorney. And if the attorney refuses
to stay at the trial, other person will be appointed instead of him.

According to other draft law the government proposes to make amendments to the
judicial code and give a right to a judicial bailiff to carry a weapon.
According to the current legislation judicial bailiffs may use rubber
truncheons, handcuffs, electrocuting devices, and spark dischargers for purposes
of self-defense. Now they will also have a right to possess weapons. According
to Gevorg Danielyan judicial bailiffs have such responsibilities that can be
carried out fully only if they have a real ability to use a weapon. That is why
weapon possession should be considered as a lawful means. According to him the
experience of special services in RA indicates that possession of weapon is
compulsory with distinct cases, otherwise life and health of the people can be
threatened. According to the draft law the judicial bailiffs whose tasks include
provision of external protection and internal security will have a right to
possess a weapon.

Though Gevorg Danielyan has announced that the proposed amendments are not
conditioned by the current political situation many people think that these
changes are connected to the events of March 1, particularly to the “Case of
Seven”. For example, Viktor Dalakyan, deputy of the RA National Assembly, thinks
that this draft law presented by the government presupposes solution to the
“Case of Seven”. According to Dalakyan the judge can judge very subjectively and
send the accused out from the courtroom with bias approach. “I see threats to
impartial behavior of the judge” announced Viktor Dalakyan.

The advocate organizations don’t approve the initiated changes either. According
to Lilit Petrosyan, head of the human rights department of the Civil Society
Institute NGO, the changes proposed by the government are a step back because
“we have fought for inclusion of the provision not to conduct a trial in the
absence of the accused in the legislation and now they do the contrary”.
According to Lilit Petrosyan it is clear that there is a deadlock with the “Case
of Seven”, but these amendments are not the best way to get out of this
deadlock, there should be other solution. “This is a bad way. One of the human
fundamental rights is a right to fair trial, which will be prejudiced by these
amendments”.

Arthur Sakunts, the president of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor office in
his interview with us noted that especially in Armenia, where the court proves
by its behavior even by cases not connected to politics that it is not
independent, trial without the accused “fulfills the formation of totalitarian
system at the legislative level as well”. Arthur Sakunts mentioned that the
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides a limitation on
human freedoms only in connection with the issue of court reputation. “But this
refers to an independent court. Such a decision for Armenia or any other country
with totalitarian regime is an opportunity to conduct a trial with closed
doors”, announced Arthur Sakunts. He is sure that the decision to give a right
to judicial bailiffs to possess a weapon is also within the framework of this
logic; they try to make a person to be subordinated to aggressive and not
independent court. On the other hand by giving a right to the judicial bailiffs
to possess a weapon they try to threaten the people gathered in the court.
Arthur Sakunts doesn’t remember a case when people in the courtroom attacked
each other or the judicial bailiffs “there was no need of these amendments,
there was no real basis”.

Avetiq Ishkhanyan, the President of Helsinki Committee of Armenia, views this
issue on the platform of the trust towards the judicial authorities. According
to him, all the norms of the security should be followed in the courtroom, but
security should not be provided in such a way as to make a court a punishing
body, from which people will be afraid; “Non visible security means should be
taken, and giving a weapon to the judicial bailiffs is a way of striking terror.
As a result the number of the people who are afraid from the court will rise
rather than the respect towards the court will be increased”. According to
Avetik Ishkhanyan the legal amendments to conduct the trial in the absence of
the accused raises a number of questions; for example how the non-respectful
attitude towards the court will be understood and analyzed, “Any legal provision
in Armenia is interpreted with bias approach depending on the authorities will”.
Avetik Ishkhanyan understands that a deadlock can be created in the court, as it
is in the “Case of Seven”. “I am talking about this phenomenon. In the case of a
state that is not governed by the rule of law like Armenia, I am more concerned
with an opportunity of a bias interpretation of the law, when any conflict of an
attorney can be considered as a non-respectful attitude towards the court”.