It is not ruled out that the court will suspend the proceedings in the case of Vazgen Manukyan and apply to the Constitutional Court on Article 301, lawyer

It is not ruled out that a petition will be submitted to the court regarding the criminal case of Vazgen Manukyan, the unified candidate for Prime Minister of the Homeland Salvation Movement, asking the court to suspend the proceedings and apply to the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of Article 301 of the RA Criminal Code (public calls for the seizure of power, violation of territorial integrity, or violent overthrow of the constitutional order). This was stated by Manukyan's lawyer, Aram Vardevanyan. News.am reports.

In Vardevanyan's opinion, Article 301 of the RA Criminal Code has serious issues regarding specificity. "In 2008, the Constitutional Court, examining Vardan Malhasyan's application regarding Article 301 of the RA Criminal Code, found that it was in accordance with the Constitution, but provided a rather extensive interpretation of it," he noted.

According to Aram Vardevanyan, in 2008, the Constitutional Court concluded that not only was the article clearly constitutional, but that it corresponds to the Constitution within the framework of the Constitutional Court's legal positions.

"The Constitutional Court can make three types of decisions: to invalidate and declare unconstitutional, reject the application by finding that the norm is in line with the Constitution and corresponds to the norm based on the legal positions disclosed by the Constitutional Court. Such a decision was made regarding this article back in 2008. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that the legal practice formed regarding this article is ambiguous and requires clarification from the Court of Cassation to ensure uniformity in the practice. The Court of Cassation has not yet provided that clarification, and the practical application of the law has not been formed," the lawyer said.

Vardevanyan emphasized that the charges brought against them are unclear: "If the investigator or the prosecutor is trying to formulate this article so as to provide specific charges, our position from the very beginning has been that the accusation is unclear. For example, in the case of Article 300.1, there was no opportunity to clarify the charges because the article is of that nature. This article, having a deficit of specificity, could have had some clarity if the investigator or prosecutor had made an effort. If the investigator had clarified which foundation, principle, or norm of the constitutional order was called for public disturbance and how this disturbance is manifested. The accusation simply states that there were public calls for the seizure of power and violent overthrow of the constitutional order. It also directly mentions the public condemnation of the MPs who reconciled with the disgraceful capitulatory document of November 9."

Vardevanyan did not rule out that they might appeal to the Constitutional Court regarding Article 301 of the Criminal Code. "This article was amended in 2009, but constitutional reforms were carried out in 2015. There is some ambiguity about whether this article pertains to calls against the fundamental principles of the 2015 constitutional order or those of 2005. When this article was adopted, it was based on the 2005 Constitution."