Tsarukyan's Response is a Self-Incriminating Statement: Suren Sahakyan

Member of the 'Citizen's Decision' party Suren Sahakyan wrote on his Facebook page: “I read Mr. Tsarukyan's response to Mr. Ararat Mirzoyan's letter. I have a few personal, non-professional observations regarding it:

1. In his writing, Mr. Tsarukyan mentions in the 3rd sub-point of the 2nd item: “...I made a decision that contradicts the interests of the owner and the board of directors during the meeting, accepting the responsibility for potential significant losses...”. This is, in essence, a self-incriminating statement indicating that he did indeed participate in the management of the enterprise. Mr. Tsarukyan states that this decision did not improve his property situation. However, entrepreneurial activity is not solely about making a profit; losses are also possible. Experiencing losses does not mean that a person is not engaged in entrepreneurial activities.

2. I advise Mr. Tsarukyan's lawyers to read Article 31, Section 6 of the RA Law on Public Service, which states: “Under this law, holding a position in a trading organization (except for organizations created under international agreements involving the Republic of Armenia) is understood as... 4) except for the cases mentioned in items 1-3 of this part, being involved in the implementation of representative, regulatory, or management functions of a trading organization in any other form.”

3. Mr. Tsarukyan's response is that “everything is fine on paper.” First, we have not seen the papers to make judgments about their compliance; the raised concerns could at least suggest such a level of transparency. However, even if everything is fine on paper (which we did not dispute), the discussion is about reality, not papers. Even during the tenure of the former administration, half of the MPs were engaged in entrepreneurship (the name of everyone's business was even used as a nickname), but “everything was fine on paper.”

4. Mr. Tsarukyan considers it unacceptable to equate the owner, the deputy, and the leader of the political force, Gagik Tsarukyan. In this case, a public demand should be formed so that Mr. Tsarukyan states, at the beginning of each sentence, from which of his identities he speaks. Agree that otherwise, it will be extremely difficult to differentiate between these identities, and on the other hand, Mr. Tsarukyan will have extensive opportunities to interpret any statement unilaterally.

5. Mr. Tsarukyan does not mention that he has also spoken about the establishment of a cotton factory in Armavir and the construction of a silicon factory in Ararat. Instead, how he is involved in these initiatives is constantly narrated in the news broadcasts of the 'Central' TV Company, which is under his ownership. He meets with farmers, makes agreements, promises money, transfers funds to village administrations, and so on. I hope that the Special Investigation Service will also examine these videos (they were not included in my application).

6. To clarify these and other questions mentioned in the application, I consider the formation of an ethics committee and sending the case to the Constitutional Court based on its conclusion a necessity. We have been living in a domain regulated by the constitution for 24 years, yet the Constitutional Court has never interpreted the essence of Article 95 of today’s Constitution. We need it to be interpreted to understand what laws need to be changed so that business and the public administration system are finally separated.

7. These are my personal observations, and the position of the 'Citizen's Decision' party will be announced as necessary.”