If the National Assembly adopts the bill in this form, I will appeal to the Constitutional Court. Arman Tatoyan

The Human Rights Defender of Armenia, Arman Tatoyan, published his stance on the draft law on "Higher Education and Science" and the appointment of university rectors by the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports on his Facebook page, which we present below.

"The package of draft laws on the 'Higher Education and Science' law and related laws, approved at the government's meeting on December 3, has the following issues: 1) unacceptable substantive solutions, 2) procedural problems in the development and discussion of the draft. Despite its public significance, this legislative initiative was deemed urgent, included in the agenda as a non-reporting issue, and adopted without discussion.

I present my key observations on the draft law on 'Higher Education and Science', considering the requirements of the right to education guaranteed by Article 38 of the Constitution:

1. The draft stipulates that the head of the relevant authority appoints an acting rector (director) for a term not exceeding one year in a newly established, restructured, or merged university (scientific organization) until the formation of the governing council. This means that the project grants unilateral authority to the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports to appoint an acting rector or director of a higher education institution. This solution is extremely concerning primarily from the perspective of the universities’ self-governance rights, guarantees of academic freedom, and research independence.
2. Granting such powers to the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports is unacceptable and constitutes a gross interference in the constitutional right of self-governance of universities or scientific organizations, as this enshrines direct influence of the highest body of executive power in their institutional governance system.
3. The autonomy of universities is fundamental to the very rights of education and significantly undermines the provisions of part 13 of Article 39 of the bill regarding the management of educational institutions.
4. After this law comes into force, until January 1, 2023, the head of the relevant authority appoints a rector (director) in universities and scientific organizations undergoing reorganization, division, or merging for a term not exceeding five years. The provisions of part 2 of Article 31 of this law do not apply to the appointed rector (director). This rule is presented as a transitional provision.
5. The authority reserved for the Minister to appoint a rector or director of a university or scientific organization contradicts the legitimate purpose of guaranteeing the right to education. It is unacceptable to present such a requirement as a transitional provision, especially since the rector or director appointed by the Minister can serve the full five-year term. This means that through a transitional provision, the minister can appoint someone for the same complete term that could have been done under ordinary circumstances.
6. This unacceptable approach further deepens the provision of the project that effectively grants the head of the executive authority, that is, the minister, the right to appoint a rector or director by unilateral decision, disregarding the requirements set for candidates for that position.
7. The regulations of this project also contradict the Charter of European Universities, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), reports of the World Bank on Armenia, and other international requirements.
8. The project also contains provisions that are vulnerable for university autonomy regarding the composition proportionality of the university governance council.
9. Thus, the regulations of the project directly threaten the right to education guaranteed by Article 38 of the Armenian Constitution and contradict the right of self-governance, academic freedom, and research that underpin this right.
10. The solutions in the project do not reflect the public concerns expressed by the education and science sector, higher education institutions, and scientific organizations, as well as those separately presented to the Human Rights Defender. This also relates to the hasty approval of the draft laws and the neglect of raised issues by the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports.
11. As evidenced by the statement of the deans of Yerevan State University on December 4, numerous essential observations regarding the development of education and science in Armenia have been made.
12. The approaches of the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports are absolutely unacceptable.
13. The variants of the drafts presented to the Human Rights Defender and approved at today's government meeting also fundamentally differ. They do not fully reflect our observations.
14. In the current circumstances, the Government, especially the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports, must provide justified clarifications regarding the reason for the unexplained urgency in adopting this package of draft laws on such a publicly significant issue, as it was included in the government meeting agenda without discussion.
15. This happened while the country continues to be under a state of emergency, and numerous social, economic, and humanitarian issues that require urgent solutions have arisen as a result of the war.
16. Therefore, I express the Human Rights Defender's principled concern regarding the acceptance of the 'Higher Education and Science' law and related laws with such content and the procedural hastiness in the matter.
17. If the National Assembly adopts the bill in this form and without taking into account the observations of the professional community, I will consider the issue of appealing to the Constitutional Court based on the conflict with Article 38 of the Armenian Constitution, which guarantees the right to education. Furthermore, I will also examine the issue of submitting a request to suspend the implementation of the disputed provisions together with the appeal to the Constitutional Court," wrote Tatoyan.