WAS KOCHARYAN UNAWARE OF CONSTITUTION?

Lragir.am
08 July 06


Sedrak Baghdasaryan, resident of Buzand Street, the chair of Protection for Victims of State Needs, Democracy NGO, said in an interview with our news reporter that they wrote over 10 letters to Robert Kocharyan telling him about the destructive consequences of the development of the Center of Yerevan. Robert Kocharyan did not answer any of these letters, however. Moreover, even the Kocharyan administration did not answer. Sedrak Baghdasaryan says the letter was sent to the government, from the government to the City Hall, from the City Hall to the Office of Program Implementation. "My impression is that the best-educated, the smartest person in our country is the head of the OPI."

However, it is at least strange that the OPI answers the last letter. The letter was written May 26, 2006, in other words, after the decision of the Constitutional Court recognizing it unconstitutional. The victims of the state needs reminded Robert Kocharyan that the head of state must guarantee observation of the Constitution and punish its violation. The victims of state want to know why the president signed an unconstitutional decision. Robert Kocharyan declined to answer, which means that either he does not consider him president of people, or he thinks it is not worthwhile to answer people.

R. Harutiunyan, the head of the OPI who answered the letter, informed the victims of state needs that the president signed the decision of the government in 2002, whereas the Constitutional Court defined it as unconstitutional in 2006. "The person who signed the decision could not foresee that these would be considered as against the unconstitution." This is not a misprint. Either R. Harutiunyan has discovered a new legal, though not so logical category, or he is a little careless. Both are bad for R. Harutiunyan, who was charged with the important task of writing a letter on behalf of the president.

And if R. Harutiunyan wants to say that the person who ratified the decision could not predict that these decisions would be considered unconstitutional, which is the same as incompliant with the constitution, not knowing the law does not free from punishment. After this decision of the Constitutional Court the chamber of civilian cases of the Court of Appeal led by Arman Mkrtumyan did not try the case of the victims of public needs, in other words, it neglected the decision of the Constitutional Court.