Case Against Mandatory Mask Wearing in Outdoor Spaces at Administrative Court: Ara Zohrapyan

The case against the mandatory mask-wearing order in outdoor spaces is currently at the administrative court.

This was reported by Ara Zohrapyan, the head of the “Free Will” initiative, former president of the Chamber of Advocates, and member of the executive body of the “Zartonq” national-Christian party, on his Facebook page: “The order No. 81-N of the Minister of Health dated October 28, 2021, established that wearing masks in public outdoor areas is mandatory when outside residential areas. Numerous questions arise without delving into legal arguments. Specifically, what is the preventive purpose of this order when you compel a single person walking in a park or family members strolling together in the park to wear masks? Family members can interact without masks at home, yet a solitary citizen cannot infect or be infected by another person. Why then do you restrict the breathing rights of these individuals?”

“One does not need to be a doctor to understand that wearing a mask for extended periods limits the adequate oxygen flow to the body (anyone in doubt can cover their own nose and mouth and verify this), and a lack of oxygen affects a person's immunity. In my opinion, during this pandemic, we should encourage people to breathe as much clean air as possible and ventilate their rooms frequently.”

A petition has been filed against the aforementioned order from the Minister of Health within the framework of the “Free Will” initiative to the administrative court. The administrative court has accepted the petition for processing (Case No. VD/12244/05/21). A motion for interim measures was also submitted to partially suspend the contested provisions of the Minister of Health’s order until the trial of the case takes place. We await the response from the administrative court.

P.S. I never imagined that in the 21st century, we would be fighting for the right to breathe. The next amendment to the constitution should specify as many natural rights of a person in need of protection as possible,” he wrote.