«Mztzrik, ay akhper»: Judge’s Powers Revoked Due to His Statements

«Iravunk’i uj» NGO has provided details regarding the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council to revoke the powers of judge Rafik Melkonyan of the first instance court of Tavush province, calling it an unprecedented decision.

In the statement presented by the NGO, it is mentioned: “In the framework of the ongoing monitoring of the activities of the Supreme Judicial Council (hereafter referred to as the Council), we are addressing a decision made by the Council that is, in essence, unprecedented in its practice. It pertains to the issue of subjecting judge Rafik Melkonyan (hereafter referred to as the Judge) to disciplinary responsibility.” According to the Council’s decision, the Judge’s powers have been revoked.

As for the background of the case, the reason for initiating disciplinary proceedings was a report submitted by the Prosecutor General to the Minister of Justice, based on which disciplinary proceedings were later initiated, and a corresponding petition was presented to the Council. Among other things, the Minister noted that the Judge had exhibited behavior that undermines the authority of the judiciary, diminishes public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and shown disrespect towards the participants in the proceedings.

In particular, such behavior by the Judge occurred during court sessions on October 10, 2020, in case number TD/0030/06/20, and on December 9, 2020, in cases TD/0001/11/20, TD/0109/01/19, and TD2/0043/01/17.

At the same time, the Minister included expressions made by the Judge that, due to their nature, were classified into conditional groups:

• Expressions violating the requirement for the Judge to be independent, impartial, and unbiased: “That’s it, this guy is getting arrested,” “No matter what you want to do in the Ijevan area, you will come to me, and you will win,” “You will be my support,” “You will say: ‘Mr. Melkonyan, he should be arrested; if I don’t arrest him, I am a guilty man,’” “I will help my brother; I will have him arrested,” “You will be granted freedom,” “Those investigators, they are my brothers,” and many others.

The Minister stated that the Judge had intentionally committed the violations attributed to him, as evidenced by his statement during the session on October 26, 2020, that he could be dismissed from work based on the session’s record, but this did not bother him at all. The Judge, addressing his alleged violations, stated that during the period of the alleged violations, he had serious health issues and had undergone certain treatment, asserting that his inadequate behavior in court had exclusively pathological causes.

The Council, based on the Judge's request, suspended the proceedings and appointed a complex outpatient psychiatric examination. At the same time, the Council also ordered a complex outpatient psychological and forensic medical examination.

The Council posed the following crucial questions in this context: Were there violations of judicial behavior by the Judge in cases TD/0030/06/20, TD/0001/11/20, TD/0109/01/19, and TD2/0043/01/17? Did the Judge commit the violations intentionally or through gross negligence? Can the violations committed by the Judge be considered significant disciplinary violations in terms of the law?

The Council concluded that the Judge's conduct was incompatible with his position, highlighting that the preservation of behavioral norms by judges is essential for strengthening public trust in the judicial authority. The Council determined that the expressions made by the Judge indicated significant disciplinary violations, incompatible with the status of a judge. The Council also considered that a previous decision of the Council already applied severe admonition to the Judge on May 6, 2021.

Some expressions made by the Judge, like “You will say he should be arrested; if I don’t arrest him, I am a guilty man,” evidently create the impression that the Judge executes justice arbitrarily, driven by personal desires or motives rather than by laws. Such behavior is unacceptable for someone in his status, and it is condemnable for individuals working in the public system, especially for a judge representing the Republic of Armenia. We believe that this decision by the Council will be a significant signal for all judges to act in accordance with their status and position.