Controversial Provisions in the Amnesty Law: Ombudsman Appeals to the Constitutional Court

An examination of the complaints addressed to the Human Rights Defender has revealed that the amnesty law lacks provisions that explicitly define the grounds for applying the act of amnesty and the jurisdiction of the judicial authority responsible for its implementation in cases where a judicial decision has been appealed to a higher court, but no decision has yet been made regarding the acceptance of the case.

This was reported by the public relations department of the Ombudsman's office. As a result, both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Cassation do not have the opportunity to apply amnesty and release an individual from punishment.

It turns out that in the absence of a final judicial decision and in cases where an individual is accused of committing the same crime, in one instance they may be completely exempt from punishment, while in another case, the imposed penalty may be reduced due to amnesty.

Accordingly, the Ombudsman has appealed to the Constitutional Court, noting that this situation leads to a violation of the principle of equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination, as well as contradicts the Constitution's requirement for clarity when regulating fundamental rights and freedoms and establishing necessary organizational structures and procedures for their effective realization. It also addresses the inviolability of the essence of provisions regarding fundamental rights and freedoms and considers the constitutional principles of taking into account the practice of bodies operating based on international treaties on human rights ratified by Armenia when interpreting provisions enshrined in the Constitution regarding fundamental rights and freedoms.

The conclusions indicated in the application are reinforced by an analysis of international standards.