The Long-Awaited Decision of the Constitutional Court Has Finally Been Published

The long-awaited decision of the Constitutional Court has finally been published, and my first impression is that the legal status of officers in the highest command has worsened even further. The tenure of officers in the highest command is now entirely dependent on the will and desire of the political leadership. This was stated by Martik Martirosyan, a member of the legal team of the former Chief of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces, Onik Gasparyan, on his Facebook page.

“The long-awaited decision of the Constitutional Court has finally been published, and my first impression is that the legal status of officers in the highest command has worsened even further. The tenure of officers in the highest command is now entirely dependent on the will and desire of the political leadership. It cannot have a positive impact on the status of military personnel, as the professional capabilities of the highest command are subordinated to the whims of the political leadership.

After a lengthy explanation, it is stated that the maximum term for the Chief of the General Staff is defined by part 3 of Article 155 of the Constitution. This conclusion could be accepted if it were specified in the Constitution that the law establishes the maximum term for the Chief of Staff. However, it is clearly written in the Constitution that the Chief of the RA Armed Forces is appointed for a term established by law. Additionally, it is noted that if it is provided by law that a military personnel may be dismissed at discretion, then this is specific and lawful. By the same logic, it may be specified by law that officers in the highest command can be dismissed for reasons not foreseen by law. And when a soldier complains that they have been dismissed for reasons not foreseen by law, it can be argued that it is provided by law.

The decision also mentions that the basis for dismissing a representative of the highest command can be based on various factors, including violating political neutrality and personnel-quality factors. It should be noted concerning the listed grounds that even without the application of the disputed article, a service inspection can be conducted (for example, regarding violations of the rules for political neutrality if there is information about such a violation) or a certification. As for the position of the Chief of Staff, the opportunity to carry out the mentioned processes is not present, and the Constitutional Court did not even address the absence of that procedure nor did it state who will evaluate the qualitative factor or the violation of political neutrality,” wrote Martirosyan.