The Supreme Judicial Council Disagrees with the Ombudsman's Concerns Raised Regarding Bakhshetyan's Case

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has expressed dissatisfaction with the position and assessment of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia concerning the ongoing persecution of Judge Boris Bakhshetyan of the Syunik Region Court of General Jurisdiction.

It should be reminded that Judge Bakhshetyan is under scrutiny for his testimony against Manvel Paramazyan, the Mayor of Kajaran, which has led to the arrest of a supporter of Prime Minister Pashinyan. This action took place despite the prosecutor's office not appealing the court decision and only referencing its 'existence' after the judge decided to apply bail for Ashot Minasian.

Members of the judiciary, including the judges from the Syunik Region Court of General Jurisdiction and representatives from the legal community, have already expressed their concerns regarding the actions against the judge. The Human Rights Defender, Arman Tatoyan, provided a substantiated position based on conducted studies and private conversations with the judge, detailing the violations and indicating that the guarantees of Judge Bakhshetyan's right to a fair trial and personal freedom have been violated.

The SJC did not appreciate the Ombudsman's evaluations and issued a statement concerning the matter, which we present below:

"The Supreme Judicial Council, having reviewed the statement published by Human Rights Defender Arman Tatoyan on February 10, 2022, finds it appropriate to note that the statement contains several problematic considerations regarding the circumstances of the criminal case under review in Armenian courts and their assessment.

The Council deems it unacceptable that the Human Rights Defender did not find it necessary to obtain the Council's perspective for an objective understanding of the case when addressing the SJC and its activities in his statement.

Presenting conclusions derived solely from the interests of the defense side as the position of a constitutional body constitutes indirect interference in the independence of the judiciary. We believe that Mr. Tatoyan's actions cannot contribute to ensuring the impartiality and objectivity of the Human Rights Defender as a constitutional body, and we urge him not to undertake actions that may be perceived as interference by the Human Rights Defender in the functioning of the judicial authority."