fbpx

Why wasn’t paid due attention to Ombudsman Report in part of Justice Board and Court of Cassation Double Standards

Why HRD Reports Crossed Two Sections of SC and WD?

Author: Sona Harutyunyan

 

Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan’s report remains one of the top topics in the discussion. Unfortunately, only the first part of the report became a topic of discussion where the ombudsman spoke about corruption in the judicial system and mentioned specific tariffs. All focused on it, questioning the numbers and demanding specific facts. However, in the second part of the Ombudsman’s report, it was a matter of no less important. This is about double standards used by the Justice Council. When a judge imposes disciplinary sanctions on the same grounds, and no one else.

According to Judicial Expert Georgi Khachatryan, in the presence of such double standards, one can conclude that there is a corruption risk, since corruption is not limited to bribery. it can also be expressed impartially. “It is obvious that corruption risk includes any discretionary authority,” said the expert yesterday at “First News”. “Unfortunately, everyone’s attention was focused on the outcome, not on the reasons. Bribe rates, etc. are just the result of the double standards used by the Justice Council and the Cassation Court and other issues in the judicial system. Perhaps the reason is that today’s sensation is preferable to discussing content issues. It is amazing that up to now everyone is discussing and speaking only about the bribe rates and no one questions the court system, gentlemen, and what about the other parts of the report, which relate to the Security Council and the WF, where concrete facts are presented? An analysis has been made; the approximate methodology of that analysis is presented. In my opinion, the biggest problem is presented in that part of the report, which seemed to be forgotten or very effectively overlooked. ”

And the fact that double standards exist and practiced in the Security Council and the WD has long been known, and the Ombudsman’s report, according to the expert, was not news in this context, but it was the first, in essence, an attempt was made to analyze the existence of double standards to demonstrate the SC practice and coincidence of facts.

According to Georgi Khachatryan, the means of excluding the double standards by the SC and the WF are the transparency of the work, as well as the regulation of discretionary powers, and in some cases their restriction.

Source: 1in.am

Why wasn’t paid due attention to Ombudsman Report in part of Justice Board and Court of Cassation Double Standards

Why HRD Reports Crossed Two Sections of SC and WD?

Author: Sona Harutyunyan

 

Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan’s report remains one of the top topics in the discussion. Unfortunately, only the first part of the report became a topic of discussion where the ombudsman spoke about corruption in the judicial system and mentioned specific tariffs. All focused on it, questioning the numbers and demanding specific facts. However, in the second part of the Ombudsman’s report, it was a matter of no less important. This is about double standards used by the Justice Council. When a judge imposes disciplinary sanctions on the same grounds, and no one else.

According to Judicial Expert Georgi Khachatryan, in the presence of such double standards, one can conclude that there is a corruption risk, since corruption is not limited to bribery. it can also be expressed impartially. “It is obvious that corruption risk includes any discretionary authority,” said the expert yesterday at “First News”. “Unfortunately, everyone’s attention was focused on the outcome, not on the reasons. Bribe rates, etc. are just the result of the double standards used by the Justice Council and the Cassation Court and other issues in the judicial system. Perhaps the reason is that today’s sensation is preferable to discussing content issues. It is amazing that up to now everyone is discussing and speaking only about the bribe rates and no one questions the court system, gentlemen, and what about the other parts of the report, which relate to the Security Council and the WF, where concrete facts are presented? An analysis has been made; the approximate methodology of that analysis is presented. In my opinion, the biggest problem is presented in that part of the report, which seemed to be forgotten or very effectively overlooked. ”

And the fact that double standards exist and practiced in the Security Council and the WD has long been known, and the Ombudsman’s report, according to the expert, was not news in this context, but it was the first, in essence, an attempt was made to analyze the existence of double standards to demonstrate the SC practice and coincidence of facts.

According to Georgi Khachatryan, the means of excluding the double standards by the SC and the WF are the transparency of the work, as well as the regulation of discretionary powers, and in some cases their restriction.

Source: 1in.am