One Must Greet Not Only One's Conversation Partner but Also the Eavesdropper: Former Minister

Former Minister of Justice and former member of the Supreme Judicial Council Gevorg Danielyan wrote on his Facebook page: “Judging by the public speeches of some parliamentarians, many still do not understand which bill they have voted for. In response to a journalist's question about why the National Assembly has never addressed the unprecedented rise in thefts in the country and the police's almost inaction regarding this, one of them answers that this is precisely why the police were granted the right to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, so that they can identify crimes by hot trails.

Dear colleagues, you have not granted the police the right to eavesdrop; you have merely stipulated that, with the permission of the court, the police can organize eavesdropping directly. If this is how you have perceived it and still voted in favor, then it indicates a very dangerous parliamentary culture.

As for urgent cases where eavesdropping is conducted without a court order, the grounds for this remain the same: threats of terrorism, state, military, and environmental security.

I first presented this law to the National Assembly in 2007, and I had profound respect for knowledgeable and well-posed questioners. Even back then, the “Heritage” faction expressed well-founded concern that the term “state security” is extremely vague and cannot be considered a guarantee to exclude eavesdropping without a court order; it practically turns into a convenient means of legitimizing arbitrary eavesdropping.

In any case, the entire basis of the above was merely the presumption of legal eavesdropping. Unfortunately, life has shown that the attractiveness of eavesdropping, based on the principle ‘you are informed, therefore you are secured,’ has been applicable by all possible and impossible subjects. One must display at least minimal civility while speaking and greet not only one's conversation partner but also the eavesdropper.”