Constitutional Court Rejects Examination of Davit Tonoyan's Case Based on Appeal from Court of Appeals

The Constitutional Court has rejected the examination of the case concerning former Minister of Defense Davit Tonoyan, based on an appeal submitted by the Court of Appeals regarding the constitutionality of part 7 of Article 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was reported by "Factinfo", referencing its sources.

It should be recalled that the Appeals Court submitted an appeal to the Constitutional Court regarding Tonoyan's case. The defense of Davit Tonoyan raised the issue of the constitutionality of the legislative regulation. The issue is that part 7 of Article 483 of the current Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that if a decision has been made regarding a criminal case in court before July 1, 2022, that case is examined and resolved in accordance with the provisions of the previous Criminal Procedure Code, including in relation to preventive measures.

In other words, due to the legislative regulation, defendants whose cases were filed in court before July 1, 2022, are deprived of the application of alternative preventive measures provided for by the new code, such as the possibility to substitute imprisonment with house arrest or administrative supervision. This issue has been raised in both the court of first instance and the Appeals Court concerning Davit Tonoyan's case. Ultimately, the Appeals Court submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court based on the defense's appeal.

According to information from the Constitutional Court, the procedural decision has been made to reject the examination of the case. The Constitutional Court concluded that the lack of justification and reasoning based on internal persuasion regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the contested provision by the applicant (the president of the Appeals Court) excludes the existence of "reasonable doubt" in the sense of part 4 of Article 169 of the Constitution. Therefore, there are grounds for rejecting the examination of this petition under part 2 of Article 29 of the Constitutional Law.

Addressing the applicant's claim that part 7 of Article 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for transitional provisions, "(...) violates or may violate the right of a person to equality before the law," the Constitutional Court noted that this principle pertains to the manifestation of unjustified and illegal differentiated treatment towards individuals in the same situation before the same law. The Constitutional Court emphasized that part 7 of Article 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for transitional provisions, does not have independent applicability but rather necessitates the use of regulations outlined in the 1998 Criminal Procedure Code regarding the issues "examined and resolved" during the criminal proceedings, regarding the constitutionality of which the applicant has not raised any issues before the Constitutional Court.