Constitutional Court Judges Must Initiate Investigation Into Seda Safaryan's Violations, Says Sos Hakobyan

At least three judges of the Constitutional Court are obligated to initiate an investigation based on gross disciplinary violations committed by Seda Safaryan. This was stated by lawyer Sos Hakobyan on his Facebook page.

“On December 16, 2022, during her public swearing-in before the National Assembly, Seda Safaryan began her speech with the words, ‘Having assumed the position of a judge of the Constitutional Court…’ This implies two things: Seda Safaryan has been aware since December 16, 2022, that she is a judge of the Constitutional Court, and the public, including all judges of the judiciary in Armenia, have known—and could reasonably be expected to know—since that date that she is no longer a judge of the High Court but a judge of the Constitutional Court. This means that from December 16, at the latest, all judges in Armenia where Seda Safaryan had acted as a representative for any party were clearly informed that they were dealing not with a lawyer but with a judge of the High Court who interprets the constitutionality of laws, endowed with the highest authority at the institutional level of the judicial power.

It should be noted that there is evidence that on December 28, Seda Safaryan engaged in legal practice (in other words, representation). Therefore, Seda Safaryan has directly violated the law on the ‘Constitutional Court,’ as according to it, a Constitutional Court judge may not act as a representative or provide consultation, even gratuitously, except when representing close relatives or persons under her guardianship or supervision.

On the other hand, considering the deep substantive aspect of this, Seda Safaryan has also violated another behavioral norm by essentially using her authority as a judge to benefit herself or another person, as stated in the second point of the first part of Article 14 of the ‘Constitutional Court’ law, because the courts dealing with her cases were aware that they were interacting with a newly appointed judge of the Constitutional Court. It is still unclear when she applied to the Bar Association for her powers to be terminated.

If the violation of representation rules is grounds for the Constitutional Court to issue a ‘caution’ against Seda Safaryan, then using a judge's authority for the benefit of another person is a serious disciplinary violation that could warrant the Constitutional Court to revoke Seda Safaryan's powers as a judge.

One important aspect to consider is that from December 16 onwards, the date of her swearing-in, Seda Safaryan was not entitled to act as a lawyer. I use this undeniable argument on behalf of all lawyers in the world to conclude that Seda Safaryan has committed a gross disciplinary violation. Since the public had already known since September 15 that Seda Safaryan would soon unequivocally assume the powers of a Constitutional Court judge, the investigation into Seda Safaryan's violations of the Constitution and laws can actually begin from September 15.

In summary, at least three judges of the Constitutional Court are obligated to initiate an investigation into the gross disciplinary violations committed by Seda Safaryan. Otherwise, the judges of the Constitutional Court will discredit the Constitutional Court and themselves as judges of the Constitutional Court.