Constitutional Court of Armenia’s Decision Not Valuable from Legal Perspective: Alaverdyan
Heritage Party parliamentary faction secretary Larisa Alaverdyan considered yesterday’s Constitutional Court decision, from a legal perspective, not valuable and divided. The MP expressed this opinion upon Tert.am’s request to comment on yesterday’s decision connected with the Armenian-Turkish Protocols.
According to Alaverdyan, the Constitutional Court is the only court with the ability to survey the issue in its entirety, but the Court discussed the issue in fragments; that is, it made a decision on the issue reviewing only the text of the Protocols. In the Heritage Party MP’s opinion, apart from simply discussing the text, the Constitutional Court should have reviewed the meaning of the Protocols, comparing them with international rights and the political situation, which it didn’t do.
In Alaverdyan’s words, the main text in the Protocols allows one to unequivocaly say that a few tenets of the Protocols contradict the Constitution. For instance, according to the MP, there’s a reference in the Constitutional Court’s decision to a clause in the Declaration of Independence that Armenian Genocide recognition will continue to remain a part of Armenia’s foreign policy.
Referring to another point that contradicts the Constitution, Alaverdyan highlighted the clause on borders. In her opinion, with these Protocols, Armenia creates a precedent when it recognizes illegal, unlawful borders with another country.
Source: Tert – Original Article
Related News:
- On The Decision Of The Constitutional Court Of The Republic Of Armenia
- Turkey Finds Clauses Contradicting Protocols in Armenia’s Constitutional Court Decision
- On Philip Gordon, The Decision of The Constitutional Court
- Turkey Initiates Legal Consultations Over RA Constitutional Court’s Ruling
- Turkey Finds Fault with Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitutional Court’s Decision
Loading ...
I think the “decision” (advisory opinion) of the Constitutional Court is unconstitutional. It advisory opinion does not follow from its own findings. It is written by one who does not have any idea about writing a legal argument based on the provisions of the constitution law. It even has failed to recite the provisions themselves either in the main text or as a footnote. It refers to “other documents.” What document? A reader of “decision” must be able to read all sources used by the Court.
While Mr. Alieve, an agent of Turkey is in the business of threatening the Republic of Armenia continuously, any bilateral agreement between Armenia and Turkey would be voidable under international law.