VIDEO. It was Clear that Gasparyan and the Generals Were Not Prepared to Take Any Other Steps Aside from Their Statement – President of Armenia

President Armen Sarkissian discussed the recently controversial topic of the dismissal of Chief of General Staff Onik Gasparyan in an interview with aravot.am and the "Aravot" newspaper.

- The most intriguing issue is the story of Onik Gasparyan and the question of whether you would appeal to the Constitutional Court, which, to put it mildly, has been the subject of sharp criticism from both the government and the opposition. Please comment on your actions.

- First of all, if I have been subjected to intense criticism from both sides, I am glad. Thus, I probably made the right decision. It is natural that when the Prime Minister's proposal came to dismiss Onik Gasparyan, the expectation was that the President of the Republic would sign it. However, since all this happened after the announcement by the Chief of General Staff and his colleagues, it was natural that my first step was that I would not sign any document until I met with the people involved. I went to the General Staff and met with Onik Gasparyan. There were others present, and then I met with the generals separately, which lasted a considerable time—several hours. I don’t think it is ethically correct to share what I discussed with Onik Gasparyan.

After that, we met again with Onik Gasparyan and the generals. I can share the general impression: first of all, it was clear to me that neither Onik Gasparyan nor the generals of the General Staff were prepared to take any steps other than their announcement. They announced this themselves, and it was very clear to me in their statements. During my meeting with the generals, I heard things I already knew, as well as some information that was new to me regarding the state of the army. After that meeting, my conclusion (having consulted with colleagues, legal experts, and considering individual opinions) was as follows: there is an apparent constitutional issue. And I clearly stated that I would not sign, and sent it back to the Prime Minister. According to the procedure, the Prime Minister sent back his opinion, and I confirmed again a second time that I would not sign, and I would take the issue to the Constitutional Court, as I did.

When I declared that I would not sign, the opposition you are referring to stated that the president joined them. I regret that for three years they have not been paying attention to how the president and the presidential institution function. However, they had their own perceptions of how I should approach the Constitutional Court, and in their view, I should have addressed it solely regarding Onik Gasparyan's personal case. However, I thought that the President should appeal not only in the case of Onik Gasparyan but also with regard to the functioning of that law and its implications—encompassing both the dismissal process in such cases and the appointment, as well as the apparent constitutional issues associated with that law, which is what I did. This did not satisfy the opposition, and the expressions ‘finally we have a president, the president joined us’ were replaced with different words.

I am absolutely convinced that what we have done is correct. We acted rightly for the state, for the stability of the country, and we sought to resolve the issue appropriately by appealing to the Constitutional Court. Now the matter is before the Constitutional Court, and the Court could have expressed its stance on the very first day or, I don’t know, on any subsequent day. When the Prime Minister again approached me to sign the new appointment in place of Onik Gasparyan, as you know, I again refused and said that I would not sign, but I did not address the Constitutional Court again because I had already done so regarding that issue. That is, my appeal included not only the case of Onik Gasparyan but all possible cases. Hence, my approach to the Constitutional Court in this manner was correct.

There is criticism that I embrace because I love to listen to people's opinions. And if someone is presenting thoughts with sound reasoning, I am always ready to listen, but I am also prepared to debate with people, proving that in this specific case, I believe I am right, until one of us logically proves that they are more right. I do not believe at all that we, as an institution, acted wrongly; we acted very correctly and approached the Constitutional Court in a timely manner. This has given Onik Gasparyan and others the opportunity to appeal to the administrative court, which they did. During those days, I met with Onik Gasparyan not once but several times. I met with the Prime Minister, with the parties represented in the National Assembly, and with the opposition.