There is no mention in the AN decree that wearing masks is mandatory for everyone in public outdoor areas

The President of the Bar Association, Ara Zohrabyan, wrote on his Facebook page:

“THE ORDER STIPULATING THE WEARING OF MASKS BY THE MINISTER OF HEALTH IS DISPUTABLE. First of all, I would like to point out that wearing a mask in situations where one can infect or be infected should be a conscious decision made by each individual.

The state of emergency has been replaced by quarantine regulations. As before, we are now witnessing legal 'chaos'. Thus, the Minister of Health of the Republic of Armenia confirmed the Cases and Rules for the Use of Individual Protective Measures with Order No. 23-N dated September 11, 2020, which, in my opinion, contradicts the principles of legal certainty and proportionality as defined in Articles 78 and 79 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

The Regulation explicitly states regarding closed spaces: 'Wearing masks in closed spaces is mandatory for everyone...' However, it does NOT mention that wearing masks for everyone in public outdoor areas is mandatory. It has only been noted that 'the conditions for not wearing masks in public outdoor areas are...'. This means that only the exceptions are formulated WITHOUT MENTIONING THE MAIN PRINCIPLE. This directly contradicts the requirement of legal certainty, as the provisions of legal acts must be sufficiently clear so that those who possess rights and freedoms and the addressees can exhibit relevant behavior.

The requirement for a citizen walking alone in a public outdoor space to wear a mask contradicts the principle of proportionality, as, based on this principle, the requirements related to restrictions of basic rights by legal acts are as follows: 1) legitimacy of the purpose of the limitation, i.e., being prescribed by the Constitution; 2) the utility and necessity of the chosen means for achieving the constitutionally determined purpose, as well as 3) the proportionality of the significance of the restricted basic right and freedom.

A normative legal act containing an obligation for a person found alone in the street or park (who cannot infect another person or be infected by another person) to wear a mask cannot meet the above conditions.

Hence: 1. If the counterargument is that at any time an unmasked person might walk past another unmasked person and infect/infect each other, then why is that risk absent when we allow people to sit next to each other in a closed space and eat or permit a cyclist without a mask to pass by another cyclist?

2. If legal acts are adopted with a presumption of reasonableness, then citizens are likely to be more inclined to comply with the mandates of these legal acts.

3. I have not yet addressed other significant issues related to these legal regulations.”