Head of the Supreme Judicial Council on Vetting, Whining Judges, and Being a Puppet

The President of Armenia's Supreme Judicial Council, Ruben Vardazaryan, has arrived in Moscow on an official visit to discuss cooperation opportunities with the Russian judicial system. In an interview with Sputnik Armenia, he talked about how legal relations between the two countries might change, which judicial reforms are worth celebrating, and why judges are accused of being puppets.

- Mr. Vardazaryan, what should Armenia expect after the meeting with the President of the Supreme Court of Russia, Vyacheslav Lebedev?

- Further deepening of cooperation in the legal field. Despite both Armenia and Russia being parties to the Convention on Legal Assistance, it is essential to develop certain issues so that both judicial systems operate more efficiently.

- Speaking about Armenia's judicial system, what has changed in that system over the last three years?

- The absence of “telephone justice,” where authorities could call judges and request specific decisions. Today, such practices in Armenia are equal to zero, and I guarantee that.

- Were you able to implement the vetting of the judicial system, as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan discussed?

- You know, this is a normal process for checking personnel, and it has already started in Armenia. Vetting is a foreign word, which is why there is so much interest in it. In reality, it filters out, you could say sifts, where only those people who have full rights, including moral grounds to administer justice, remain in the judicial system. In other words, a judge must have a transparent and understandable past, be clean in terms of property, and have no compromising connections. That is how it should be, so that only honest and decent people work in the court.

- Has the percentage of personnel in Armenia's judicial system changed in some way during your tenure?

- In recent years, 30 percent of Armenia's judicial system consists of young judges who have not encountered corruption. Previously, they had worked as judge's assistants.

- Besides the new personnel, you likely notice the new trend that now everyone is turning to the courts—from ordinary citizens to the Chief of the General Staff. What does this indicate in your opinion? Have people started to trust the courts more, or are they seeking help from the courts due to hopeless situations?

- I am a concerned party, but I believe people have started to trust the judicial system. The opposition argues otherwise, claiming that people simply have no choice. However, when the number of court cases increases, it undoubtedly indicates trust. If in 2019 about 170,000 civil cases were filed, in 2020 that number rose to 177,000. For a relatively small country like Armenia, this is significant.

- Nevertheless, during his visit to the Aragatsotn region, Nikol Pashinyan openly expressed his attitude towards judges who make unfavourable decisions for the authorities. Do you not consider his words as pressure on the judicial system?

- It is certainly unpleasant when the Prime Minister speaks negatively about judges. But I believe there should be some conflict between the judicial system and political power; otherwise, there would be no progress. If we always did what the authorities wanted, it would be despotism. Moreover, it is commendable that there are no political prisoners in Armenia—at all. This is a significant achievement for the authorities, the opposition, and the judicial system. Therefore, a certain degree of conflict is necessary. However, it is important that the 'conflict' has clear boundaries and does not escalate into 'war.'

- At least, the boundaries are not always maintained. Members of the ruling faction literally overwhelmed you with questions during the last parliamentary session. Do you believe those were directed personally at you or at the system?

- I think they were directed at me personally because I have the courage or audacity to respond to the Prime Minister with his own words. He once said that there are 'whining judges' in Armenia. A year and a half later, I stated that it was time to prove that we are not whining judges but rather professionals serving our homeland. And that expression became an occasion for attacks, one-sided, and that’s why the battle was unequal. I have always limited myself to ethical norms. A judge must be restrained both in service and at home, and I could not go beyond permissible limits. But in my opinion, I endured, although what happened surprised me. My words had no political context. When the Prime Minister said the same words, they were perceived as a speech. When I said we should prove the opposite, it was deemed a political statement.

- Do you think this conflict has already been resolved?

- I believe everyone is pouring oil on the fire—both the authorities, the opposition, and the journalists. When the day’s issues are over, and someone needs to write something on social media, they remember those words.

- You have been called a puppet of the previous administration. How do you feel about that accusation?

- You know, I am 53 years old, and throughout this time, I have lived a normal human life. I studied in school, got into university, served in the army, worked in various places. Naturally, I have always been surrounded by people, and I have built normal relationships with them. It can’t be that a person was born in 1967, then took a long break until 2018, and suddenly becomes the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. I have worked both during the Soviet era and the post-Soviet period, during Ter-Petrosyan's time, Kocharian's era, Sargsyan's period, and now I am working during Pashinyan's time. If suddenly the power changes, will they call me a puppet of Pashinyan? I am engaged in my professional activities.

- Armenia is once again on the brink of changes. What should be expected in the judicial system in the near future?

- The judicial authority is conservative, and the shocks it has encountered will not lead to anything good. I do not know whether constitutional reforms will relate to the judicial system, but for us, tranquility is important. Judicial reforms should take place, but they should happen evolutionarily and relate to the legislative basis, mechanisms, without revolutions.