Official Clarification from the Supreme Judicial Council on the Controversy Surrounding the Most Notorious Criminal Case Video

The Judicial Department of the Republic of Armenia released a video regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations for the criminal cases against Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan among other topics. Following the release of the video, several lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders, and some neutral individuals closely associated with certain political circles harshly criticized it. Here, we address the main arguments made against the video.

Thesis 1: “The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has no right to make such films, especially concerning judges.” The SJC did not prepare the video; it was created by the Judicial Department of Armenia, which has a Department for Judicial Practice Analysis and Monitoring, as well as a Press and Public Relations Service. The first entity gathered, analyzed, and provided all the data, while the second summarized and presented it in video format.

Thesis 2: “The Judicial Department has no right to criticize any judge’s work.” The law authorizes the Judicial Department to examine judicial practices and publicize the results. According to the law, the Ministry of Justice, which initiates disciplinary proceedings based on these publications, and the Ethics Committee of the Judiciary can even bring a disciplinary action against the SJC.

Thesis 3: “A state (judicial) body should not criticize one judge and praise another.” The data presented was exclusively objective and accurate. It is not the fault of the Judicial Department that one judge's results were more positive than another's. Moreover, the public has the right to access all non-confidential information essential for the credibility of the judicial system. It is unacceptable to blur the truth, mix the wet with the dry, and condemn the entire judicial branch for the shortcomings of one or two judges. Even more so, it is unacceptable to attribute all failures to the judicial system in the case of insufficient effort from various state bodies.

The judicial authority demonstrates, through this video, that it possesses sufficient integrity and self-reflection to identify and reveal its own shortcomings. We wish the same for everyone.

Thesis 4: “Certain episodes of the video prove there was interference in judicial matters.” The video presents with mathematical accuracy how the change in the composition of the SJC coincided with the acceleration of certain cases. No reasons were discussed. To avoid unnecessary speculation, we can only assume that the acceleration occurred due to an increase in the overall management effectiveness of the judicial system or as a result of the SJC holding certain judges accountable (for instance, the termination of Judge Anna Pilosyan's powers for delaying cases).

Thesis 5: “The video puts pressure on judges.” This claim is so false and unfounded that its proponents have not even been able to explain how the truth pressures a judge. A pressured judge is more likely to be influenced by various political circles or the media campaigns they regularly conduct than by the objective and fully legal presentation of open data. Despite certain attacks, the Judicial Department will not conceal any essential information and will continue to implement necessary public awareness through updated methods. We are confident that the Supreme Judicial Council will also continue to ensure the regular functioning and independence of the Judicial Department and all judges.