Council of the Bar Association's Statement on the Suspension of Judges' Powers

The Council of the Bar Association of Armenia has issued a statement regarding the suspension of several judges’ powers by the Supreme Judicial Council. We present it below.

According to a decision by the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Armenia on July 3, 2023, the powers of Judge David Harutyunyan of the Yerevan City Court of General Jurisdiction and, according to another decision on the same day, the powers of Judge Astghik Kharatyan of the Court of Appeals and judges Artak Barseghyan and Tigran Petrosyan of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation have been suspended due to significant disciplinary violations.

It has also been made clear by the media that the participation of lawyers and journalists in the above proceedings has been restricted, the hearings were held behind closed doors, and other procedural violations occurred.

Earlier this year, the powers of three more judges were also suspended.

The Council of the Bar Association expresses its concern about the information circulating in the public domain indicating that the aim of these actions is to create internal administrative dependence among judges and to punish “disobedient” judges. Article 3.1 of the Universal Charter of Judges adopted by the International Association of Judges on November 17, 1999, defines the principle of internal independence, stipulating that while performing judicial duties, a judge is subject only to the law and must consider only the law.

A hierarchical structure of the judiciary that requires a judge to be subordinate to the court president or higher courts when making judicial decisions, except in the case of exchanging opinions, would be considered a violation of the principle of judicial independence.

According to Article 3.2, which defines the requirement for a judge's personal independence, it is unacceptable for any branch of power to exert direct or indirect influence, pressure, threats, or interference.

It is noteworthy that the Bar Association had previously expressed its position during the discussions on the constitutional amendments in 2015, regarding the current composition of the Supreme Judicial Council, which it deemed problematic, proposing that the Council be formed with a majority of judges. The Bar Association viewed this as a circumstance that threatens the independence of the judicial authority.

Unfortunately, recent developments confirm the predictions of the Bar Association.

Reaffirming the requirements established by international standards, the Council of the Bar Association considers any process concerning judges that may aim to undermine their independence unacceptable.

Regarding specific cases, the Council expresses its concern over allegations made by judges whose powers have been suspended, asserting that disciplinary proceedings have been conducted with significant violations of various norms of substantive law and procedural rules.

Among the highlighted issues are the unconstitutional practice of applying retroactive laws that worsen a person's legal status against judges, failure to properly examine arguments presented by them, misinterpretation of substantive norms, conducting proceedings regarding accusations involving statutes of limitations violations, annulments of judicial proceedings, and the lack of proven guilt in the acts attributed to them.

In this context, the Council calls attention to existing international standards, such as Article 17 of the Fundamental Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the UN General Assembly, which defines a judge's right to respond to allegations against them and to a fair examination of those allegations.

Particularly concerning for the Council of the Bar Association is the information indicating that the possibility for the invited lawyer to provide legal assistance to the judge was not ensured, including restrictions on the participation of a lawyer in proceedings and conducting hearings in their absence.

In this regard, the Council of the Bar Association notes that the right to receive legal assistance is a key and inalienable element of a person's right to a fair trial, irrespective of the individual's status and legal knowledge. Any unlawful restrictions on this right lead to violations of a person's right to a fair trial.

The disproportionate application of the harshest measures of responsibility for the alleged violations also deserves separate discussion.

It should be noted that international widely recognized documents establish very high standards for the suspension of a judge's powers, even on the grounds of disciplinary misconduct. Specifically, according to Article 18 of the Fundamental Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the UN General Assembly, judges may only be temporarily suspended or removed from office due to incapacity to perform their duties or misconduct incompatible with office.

In summary, the Council of the Bar Association, emphasizing the need to ensure guarantees for judges to act independently as a condition for the realization of individuals' right to a fair trial, expresses its concern regarding the arbitrary interpretation and application of procedures for conducting disciplinary proceedings by the Supreme Judicial Council of Armenia, as well as the disproportionality of the chosen disciplinary sanctions.