GOVERNMENT TO COME UP WITH INITIATIVE OF LEGISLATIVE
AMENDMENTS TO LIMIT CORRUPTION RISKS
14-07-2008 19:20:00 | Armenia | Human Rights
YEREVAN, JULY 14, NOYAN TAPAN. Sometimes months are not
enough for examining such events as those of March 1-2 and haste
in this issue sometimes has negative consequences, RA Minister
of Justice stated at the July 14 meeting with Thomas Hammarberg,
the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. The
RA Minister also referred to international experience as a proof
of his statement.
In his interview to journalists the Minister said that the
Commissioner for Human Rights was interested in the RA
authorities' response to the amendments to be made to Article
225, Mass Disorders, and 300, Seizure of Power, RA Criminal Code,
on which there is also the conclusion of the Venice Commission.
The Minister in detail presented the Venice Commission's
position emphasizing that the Commission agrees to the most of
provisions, and the Armenian authorities are ready to reconsider
the provisions, over which there is lack of agreement. Gevorg
Danielian assured the Commissioner for Human Rights that the
government is going to come up with an initiative of legislative
amendments, which in practice will contribute to courts'
independence, as well as will limit possible manifestations of
corruption risks as far as possible.
A number of provisions of PACE Resolution N 1620 were also
spoken about at the meeting, in particular, according to one of
the provisions, judgements based only on policeman's evidence
are considered inadmissible. The RA Minister of Justice said
that this position does not correspond to international
standards, European court's precedent judicial acts: "If we
doubt any policeman's evidence, it is an individual issue and
should become a subject of discussion" and if not, no one is
authorized to say that one evidence, if it is policeman's
testimony, can be considered as a basis. According to the
Justice Minister, T. Hammarberg agreed with him mentioning that
the Resolution had another idea: it did not mean that it could
not be considered absolutely inadmissible, but preference should
not have been given to the evidence that is self-confession
testimony or evidence of one policeman.