News

One more victory in the Constitutional Court
01/15/10

On 14 January, 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, upholding the application submitted by the Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia recognized Part 1 of Article 343 of the RA Criminal Code contradicting to the requirements of a number of provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and invalid.

It should be recalled that on 8 June, 2009 the RA Human Rights Defender Armen Harutyunyan lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court of Armenia, challenging the conformity of Part 1 of  Article 343 of the RA Criminal Code with the Constitution of Armenia. The RA Chamber of Advocates also addressed the Defender with the request to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Part 1 of Article 343 of the RA Criminal Code states that “Contempt in the face of the court, manifested through a malicious avoidance by a witness or a victim or a advocate to attend a court hearing or failure to respect the court order or in some other way, which attests to the unconcealed ignorance of the court or a court hearing…” The persons who commit the acts referred to in Part 1 of the Article mentioned shall be liable to pay a fine equal to one hundred minimum salaries or to be sent to prison for up to one month.

The basis for the Defender to apply to the Constitutional Court have been the points of the legal definition according to which the impugned legal rule places in particular an advocate  in a disadvantaged position vis-a-vis the other parties to a trial, including that of the prosecutor, since for the same act an advocate can be persecuted, and the  prosecutor may not. Besides, the uncertainty of the impugned legal rule may lead to its arbitrary interpretation and use. Hence, at one instance the disposition of the impugned rule was relied on to bring criminal charges against an advocate who left the court room during the hearing, when a similar conduct by another advocate was not considered to constitute a contempt in the face of the court and thus, had no legal consequences.

Armen Harutyunyan appealed to the Constitutional Court also on the ground that the disputed provisions of the Criminal Code fall short of the requirements of the principle of legal certainty, i.e. they are not laid down with sufficient clarity. Subsequently, the provisions laid down in Part 1 of Article 343 do not allow an interested party to associate his conduct with it and to foresee, if needed with legal advice, the consequences which a given conduct may entail.

During the hearing on January 14, 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, based on the outcome of the examination of the case, decided to recognize Part 1 of Article 343 of the RA Criminal Code as far as not applicable to the other parties to a trial contradicting to the requirements of Article 14.1 and Article 19 (Part 1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and invalid.