- 10.05.2014
- Posted by: elauser
- Category: statements
The human rights non-governmental organization “Europe in Law Association” (hereinafter: ELA) submitted a letter to the Administration of the RA Ministry of Justice (hereinafter: the Administration) within its observation mission of the selection of the candidates for the Armenian judge to the European Court of Human Rights, requesting a permission to get familiarized with the documents submitted by the candidates, the log maintained by the Administration to register the submitted applications, as well as to get the copies of these documents. Finally on 1 October 2014, the ELA’s representatives were allowed to get familiarized with the aforementioned log, the documents submitted by the candidates, as well as the RA MoJ’s log of entries and exits and to make photos of these documents. As a result of the examination of the information in the public domain regarding the process of the organization of the tender, in what follows we describe our preliminary findings of the documentary stage of the tender:
1. As early as 11 September 2014, the ELA submitted an application to the RA Ministry of Justice requesting a permission for the observation of all stages of the tender, including the stage of initial screening based on the submitted documentation. No response was given to this request.
2. Referring to Tsovinar Khachatryan, press secretary of the RA Ministry of Justice, a number of Armenian media outlets disseminated information on 24.09.2014 at 18.59pm, 20.08pm and 20.48pm, according to which the number of the applicants was 11. “Today [24.09.2014] we received 7 applications while the remaining 4 had been submitted earlier. In case of two applicants there was a necessity to correct the documents. The documents were corrected and resubmitted. No one has withdrawn his/her application so far.”
3. In the period of the submission of the applications and afterwards the Administration refused to publicize the names of applicants, resorting to an explanation which was void of any legal basis, i.e. that this was being done upon the request/demand of the applicants. Note should be taken of the fact that the application packages lacked any written request reflecting such a wish/demand, which means that the Administration disseminated misinformation, not to mention the fact that any such request by a candidate aspiring to service the public interest would itself be incompatible with the position of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights.
4. On 26 September 2014, information was spread that the number of applicants for the tender was 14. According to the same publications, the RA Ministry of Justice explained the growth in the number of the applicants by the fact that ‘3 applications contained irregularities, which were corrected and the applications were resubmitted.’ On 27 September the list of these 14 applicants was published, while the RA MoJ’s PR Department informed the media that ‘part of the applicants’ were given an opportunity to correct the shortcomings of their applications within the 3 days following the deadline for submission’.
5. According to the log for the admission of the applications, only 4 applicants submitted incomplete packages. They were Nelik Haroutyunyan, Davit Khachatouryan, Liza Grigoryan and Arman Sarvaryan. Nelik Haroutyunyan and Davit Khachatouryan submitted the documents on 22 September. On the same day by a letter from Mickael Minasyan, member of the RA MoJ’s Administration they were notified of the inconsistencies within their applications with the requirements defined by the commission and the possibility of resubmitting the packages by the expiry of the three days following the main deadline. According to the log, both Nelik Haroutyunyan and Davit Khachatouryan resubmitted the documents on the following day, 23 September, and on the same day by a letter they were notified of the completeness of their packages. Another applicant, Liza Grigoryan submitted her package on 24 September, on the same day she was notified of the inconsistencies in her package. She resubmitted the proper package on 26 September and on the same day she was notified about the completeness of her package. Applicant Arman Sarvaryan submitted the documents by email on 23 September. On 24 September a note was made regarding the inconsistencies in his package and the complete package was resubmitted on 26 September. It becomes evident from the above facts that by the deadline of 24 September, 18.00pm, the number of applicants could not grow from 11 to 14 due to inconsistencies in the packages of 3 applicants, since as has already been mentioned the 2 applicants having submitted incomplete packages – Nelik Haroutyunyan and Davit Khachatouryan – had resubmitted the complete packages and received notices to this effect on 23 September. However, it should be mentioned that even if there were 3 incomplete applications by the deadline of 24 September, 18.00, they had to be counted within the overall number of submitted applications since these applicants would have the possibility of resubmitting their applications by 27 September, 18.00pm. These facts show that in their efforts to explain the growth of applicants from 11 to 14, the Administration even relied on shameful mathematical hocus-pocuses.
6. According to the log for the admission of the applications, 3 applicants – Armen Haroutyunyan, Arayik Melkoumyan and Nora Karapetyan – submitted their packaged by post and their packages were received on 24 September. It should be noted that applicants Arayik Melkoumyan’s and Nora Karapetyan’s postal envelops were missing from their packages. In a meeting with the ELA’s representatives Mickael Minasyan, representative of the MoJ’s Adminsitration provided illogical and unclear explanations. First, he stated that the envelops were preserved to avoid manipulations, then he took Armen Haroutyunyan’s envelop out of a drawer stating that the envelop contained the postal stamp of 23.09.2014, then he indicated that perhaps the other 2 applicants had submitted their applications in person. It should be noted that there is no evidence regarding the fact that the applications posted by Nora Karapetyan and Arayik Melkoumyan had been received by the Administration by 24 September, 18.00. As regards applicant Armen Haroutyunyan, the examination of his postal envelop reveals that applicant Armen Haroutyunyan had submitted his envelop to the post office No 0078 on 23 September at about 09.15 a.m. This post office is the one located on 16 Margaryan street. It services inter alia the Ministry of Justice and is located at a distance of 1200 m from the MoJ’s building. This means that applicant Armen Haroutyunyan was near the building of the MoJ on 23 September at 09.15 but for unknown reasons decided to post the application package rather than hand it in person. The reverse side of the envelop has two stamps, the smaller being the stamp of the central postal department while the latter – 0078 – the same post office. It also has a mark of the timing of the receipt of the envelop by the postal department, which is 24 September, about 18.45pm. This fact shows that in no case could this envelop appear in the Ministry of Justice by the deadline of 24 September, 18.00pm.
7. In the light of the aforementioned facts it becomes possible to explain how the number of the applicants announced after the deadline grew from 11 to 14 as well as the secretive working methods of the Administration, which aimed to circumvent public oversight and to disseminate misinformation.
8. Another proof of secret practices of the Commission is its failure to notify the ELA in advance of the time and location of the Commission sittings and to provide the minutes of these sittings. The last fact may be accounted for by the absence of these minutes as such due to the fact that no Commission sittings are being convened or these meetings take place electronically.
The ELA expresses its concern regarding these facts, condemns the unfair, non-public and non-transparent practices of the Commission and its Administration, demands that Armen Haroutyunyan, Nora Karapetyan and Arayik Melkoumyan be removed from the list of the candidates for the interview. We also demand that the Commission abstains from the patronage of certain candidates, as well as calls on these three candidates to submit self-recusals.
“Europe in Law Association”