Finance Ministry's Clarifications Confirm Risks to the Institutional Independence of the Human Rights Defender

The clarifications from the Armenian Ministry of Finance dated March 15, 2021, regarding the legislative initiative aimed at dismantling the institutional independence of the Human Rights Defender from the Government and the ruling parliamentary faction do not alleviate the concerns raised by the Human Rights Defender and affirm the fundamental risks to the institution's institutional independence. This has been reported by the office of the Human Rights Defender.

Furthermore, the Human Rights Defender stresses that this project must be considered within the context of other factors, including the unjustified reduction of the institution's technical capacities (vehicles) immediately before the project development process. The fundamental risks associated with the project should also be examined in light of the institutional misconceptions regarding the Human Rights Defender's institution, as is clearly evident from the justifications of the project and the clarifications of the executive body.

The main considerations can be summarized as follows:

• First, this legislative initiative proposing changes to the constitutional law on the Human Rights Defender has not been discussed at any stage of its development, review, or circulation with the Defender’s institution, nor has any opinion been requested. The very fact that the projects were developed and circulated was unexpected for the staff of the Human Rights Defender.
• Moreover, from the moment of the circulation of the projects until their adoption, the Ministry of Finance or any other competent body of the executive power did not initiate any discussions with the Human Rights Defender's institution, and ultimately, they were unexpectedly adopted as non-reportable issues. The Human Rights Defender was only informed about the adoption of the project after the meeting.
• The Human Rights Defender noted that he participated in the meetings of the Finance and Economic Committee on September 22, 2020, and January 26, 2021. During those meetings, the Defender provided legally substantiated remarks on the unacceptable and risky solutions of the project from the perspective of the constitutional and international role of the Human Rights Defender’s institution. However, these concerns and objections received greatly inadequate counterarguments, discussed from perceptions contradicting the role of the Human Rights Defender, and were ultimately adopted without considering any of the Defender's justifications.

Consequently, the very fact that the project was discussed in committees, without addressing any of the fundamental concerns of the Human Rights Defender, does not provide a basis to claim that the adoption of the project represents a participatory and balanced solution. Additionally, it should be noted that such fundamental changes to the budget system regulations were adopted in the Government's meeting on March 11 without discussion, as a non-reportable issue, and without informing the Human Rights Defender, unexpectedly.

As for the purpose pursued by the project, the clarifications from the Ministry of Finance stem not from project-specific solutions and their logical connection to changes in applicability, but rather represent mere good intentions, promises, and assurances. For instance, it is noted that the project aims to "reform the budget system regulations, taking into account contemporary perceptions regarding budget expenditure policies in the modern world and the accumulated experience in our country over the years," which is not substantively reflected in the project's justifications. Or in another case, it reflects the aim to "remove regulations that may create the impression that they predetermined the amounts of budgetary allocations in the following years." However, in practice, no problem or example is presented regarding who and on what basis these questioned regulations could create an legally unacceptable 'impression.'

Alongside all this, the justifications for the adoption of the project are one-sided, entirely composed of mechanical and financial perspectives. They do not take into account the primacy of human rights, the issues of human rights protection in specific areas. They ignore the international requirements and specifics of the Human Rights Defender's institution in the country, as well as the fact that guaranteeing the protected and independent work of the Human Rights Defender's institution is a positive obligation of the state. This obligation is enshrined in Article 191 of the Armenian Constitution.

A stated goal of the project is to "create an environment, in contrast to the current regulations of often emotional manifestations, where the National Assembly of Armenia will be able to best reflect budgetary allocations in accordance with the obligations assumed by the Constitution and laws in the state budget law every year.” However, under the current guarantee of financing the functioning of the Human Rights Defender, for example, it is unclear where the "emotionality" comes from, and whether this provision hinders the National Assembly of Armenia from adequately assessing and taking actions in cooperation with the Ombudsman—and the institution endowed with international status—thus fulfilling its international obligations regarding the ongoing development of human rights protection in the country.

In the clarifications, the main focus of the Ministry of Finance is on the purposefulness of public spending, thriftiness, and the accountability and efficiency of every dram spent on the state apparatus, establishing a logical chain of function-body-responsibility-outcome-evaluation within the public administration system. No one denies that the Government of Armenia should introduce procedures for targeted and accountable expenditure of public funds. However, we are forced to return to the link between the project solutions and their connection to content from a human rights perspective. Additionally, it should not be forgotten that the institution of the Human Rights Defender is not part of the public administration system, and perhaps the addressees of such financial accountability and control mechanisms should not be its structure.

In the official clarifications, the Ministry of Finance brought an example related to regional divisions, revealing that this example has no apparent connection to the justification of its arguments. Even if we momentarily imagine that the Government has allocated financial resources to the Human Rights Defender for having regional subdivisions in all areas, it is clear that the funding for the following year will be allocated as much as necessary for the functioning of those subdivisions, and not for ten nonexistent additional regional subdivisions. That is why the Human Rights Defender continually offers to conduct discussions on the projects, which the Government continuously refuses.

Finally, it must be remembered that it was precisely due to the Government's failure to allocate funding that the regional subdivisions of the Human Rights Defender’s staff were fundamentally reduced at one time. Therefore, this example is clearly inappropriate and was presented by the Ministry of Finance in a manner conducive only to its justifications.

Now, let’s turn to the international standards related to the activities of the Human Rights Defender and the legislative regulations for implementing constitutional requirements. It is fundamentally unacceptable for the body of executive power to interpret the constitutional requirement for proper financing of the Human Rights Defender's activities in such a way that it claims to be "self-sufficient" and does not require additional regulations. The logic of the constitutional solution suggests that it should be ensured both through the consolidation of legislative procedures and through the consistent adherence to them in practice. Furthermore, the Government of Armenia has uniquely interpreted the operational Paris Principles for national human rights institutions and the accreditation process of the Human Rights Defender, assuring that the legislative provision regarding proper financing fully meets those requirements. However, it is worth noting that during the previous accreditation of the Armenian Human Rights Defender, among other factors, the guarantee proposed in the project for elimination was taken into account.