Civilnet
On April 8, Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan held a press conference during which he presented the annual human rights report published by his office. He also discussed other matters concerning the Human Rights Defender’s Office, including the Constitutional Court’s April 2nd decision on the mandatory component of the law on “Accumulative Pension System.”
Andreasyan discussed separate sections of the annual report, including those on the Ministries of Science and Education, Culture, Health, Agriculture, and Economy; the State Revenue Committee; the State Commission for the Protection of Economic Competition; and the Yerevan Municipal Council. The largest number of violations were recorded in the court and judicial systems and in the sphere of economic rights protection (State Commission for the Protection of Economic Competition and State Revenue Committee).
“There is much to do in these spheres with regard to improving the system,” Andreasyan said. He added that this report is the most extensive compared with previous annual reports compiled by the Human Rights Defender’s Office. “We’ve tried to present in 500 pages not only the work carried out by state bodies, but also the state of human rights in Armenia,” the Ombudsman said.
He noted that what is new in this year’s report is that they’ve presented the achievements and shortcomings of different state institutions according to different rights. There’s also a separate section in the report on private institutions.
The Yerevan Municipal Council responded to the ombudsman’s report with an attempt to justify its activities, to which Andreasyan said, “If certain institutions consider the publication of shortcomings by the Human Rights Defender’s Office not necessary, then the Office should shut down. We must note that complaints by different institutions have decreased and their quality has changed. We don’t invent flaws, we present them professionally. We don’t criticize out of thin air; we do this to change something in our lives.” Andreasyan noted that of the 155 cases mentioned in last year’s report, action was taken with regard to only 44.
The ombudsman also noted, however, that despite the large number of issues Armenia faces today, it is more advanced in terms of human rights protection than Hungary and other post-Soviet countries.
In regard to the Constitutional Court’s April 2 decision, Andreasyan stated, “At this point I can’t understand if I’m required to pay the mandatory pension payment or not. I’m a professional lawyer and work with 40 lawyers in our office; however all of us are confused. We can’t figure out how to interpret the discrepancy between Articles 6 and 7 of the Court’s decision.”
On April 2, the Constitutional Court deemed unconstitutional certain provisions of the law on the “Accumulative Pension System.” The National Assembly and the Government of Armenia were given a deadline of September 30, 2014 to change certain provisions of the pension law. Moreover, the court held that all pension payments already paid into the system must be reviewed.
The four parliamentary opposition factions - Prosperous Armenia, Armenian National
Congress, ARF Dashnaktsutyun and Heritage - had appealed to the Court on
December 17, 2013, challenging the constitutionality of Articles 5, 7, 8, 37,
38, 45, 49 and 86 of the pension law.
Ombudsman Andreasyan explained that if previously citizens approached the Office of the Human Rights Defender asking if they had to pay the mandatory payments or not, they would be reassured that they didn’t have to. However, if citizens ask the Office now about not paying the payments until September 30, they can’t be reassured because they might be fined later. As of now, the Office is avoiding giving any advice. According to Andreasyan, he has 20 days to figure out whether or not the category of citizens affected must continue paying until September 30.
When discussing the fact that Constitutional Court member Felix Tokhyan expressed different opinions to different TV stations on the Court’s decision, Andreasyan noted that he does not find this as alarming as the fact that as a lawyer, he cannot understand the difference between Articles 6 and 7 of the decision.
“I also find it worrisome that the members of the Constitutional Court and I don’t have the right to interpret the Court’s final decision. But what can we do if the decision needs to be interpreted?” asked the ombudsman, adding that he too does not know what to do until September 30.
Ani Grigoryan
Stories
