VZCZCXRO3665
RR RUEHIK
DE RUEHYE #0030/01 0210654
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 210654Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9947
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000030 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USDOJ/OPDAT for Carl Alexandre and Catherine Newcombe 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM KJUS AM
SUBJECT: ARMENIA CORRECTS IMBALANCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 
 
REFS: A) 09 YEREVAN 403 B) 08 YEREVAN 369 
 
YEREVAN 00000030  001.3 OF 002 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) On January 14, Armenia's Constitutional (Supreme) Court 
struck down as unconstitutional a controversial criminal code 
statute that allowed defense attorneys, victims, or witnesses -- but 
not prosecutors -- to be charged with contempt of court for acting 
contemptuously to a judge.  The statute in question assumed a 
prominent political profile in July 2009 when it was used against 
several defense attorneys representing a pro-opposition tycoon who 
fell out of favor with the authorities after supporting the 2008 
presidential campaign of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian.  On 
January 19, a Yerevan court subsequently dismissed the charges 
against the three defense attorneys, who risked losing their license 
to practice had they been found guilty.  The ruling on the statute 
-- in response to a suit brought by Armenia's Human Rights Defender 
-- corrected an inherent imbalance in Armenia's criminal justice 
system, and marks a rare, welcome victory for legal reform.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
CONTROVERSIAL STATUTE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶2. (SBU) On January 14, Armenia's Constitutional (Supreme) Court 
struck down as unconstitutional a controversial criminal statute 
that allowed defense attorneys, victims, and witnesses -- but not 
prosecutors -- in a court case to be charged with contempt of court 
for acting contemptuously to a judge.  The Court found the article 
to be unconstitutional because it failed to include the actions of a 
prosecutor within the scope of the law.  The case against the 
statute was brought to the Constitutional Court by Armen 
Harutiunian, the Human Rights Defender in Armenia, at the request of 
Armenia's Chamber of Advocates (Defense Bar). 
 
---------------------------------- 
STATUTE HAD HIGH POLITICAL PROFILE 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  As of January 18, there were four defense attorneys charged with 
Contempt of Court based on this statute.  Three of them -- Artur 
Petrosian, Diana Grigorian, and Ara Zakarian -- had this charge 
brought against them while they were defending two employees of a 
pizza chain owned by the pro-opposition tycoon and member of 
parliament Khachatur Sukiasian (reftels).  Sukiasian fell out of 
favor with the authorities during the 2008 presidential election 
when he openly supported the campaign of ex-President Levon 
Ter-Petrossian, and subsequently found his extensive business assets 
targeted with aggressive tax raids, expropriation, and criminal 
cases. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
CORRECTING AN IMBALANCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The Constitutional Court's action corrects a significant 
imbalance in Armenia's adversarial criminal justice system.  At 
present, Armenian judges work hand-in-hand with prosecutors, much to 
the frustration of the defense bar.  In the Sukiasian pizza chain 
case, the defense attorneys discovered that the trial judge had 
allegedly back-dated a document relating to one of the defendant's 
incarceration status.  When the attorneys complained to the court, 
the judge refused to review the matter or disqualify herself.  With 
no other recourse the three attorneys left the courtroom, prompting 
the judge to hold them in contempt.  When the defense attorneys then 
asked the administrative judge for an investigation into the action 
of the trial judge, the administrative judge referred the matter to 
the prosecutors to open an investigation against the defense 
attorneys only, ignoring the allegations against the trial judge. 
 
¶5. (SBU) This case is but one in a number of instances in which 
Armenia's judicial and prosecutorial authorities have sought to put 
defense attorneys "in their place."  Although the criminal penalties 
for "disrespectful treatment" are relatively lenient (one month's 
incarceration), it can also result in the attorney losing his 
license to practice law.  Accordingly, the law has had a chilling 
effect on the Defense Bar, making defense attorneys extremely 
careful in watching what they say. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAVE CHARGES DISMISSED 
---------------------------------------- 
 
 
YEREVAN 00000030  002.3 OF 002 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) On January 19, the first instance court of Yerevan's 
Arabkir and Zeytun communities acquitted Petrosian, Grigorian, and 
Zakarian.  The Contempt of Court charges against all three were 
dismissed after the Constitutional Court ruling declared as 
unconstitutional the charges leveled against them.  As of today, 
then, only one defense attorney in Armenia remains charged with 
Contempt of Court (Moushegh Shushanian), but we expect those charges 
to be dismissed in the near future.  Shushanian was also defending a 
pro-opposition supporter jailed after the March 2008 post-election 
unrest when the Contempt of Court charge was leveled against him. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) The ruling by the Constitutional Court comes as an 
unexpected surprise, and represents a rare, welcome victory for 
legal reform.  In a country where the executive branch has long 
dominated the judicial branch, and where the judiciary has been 
aggressively -- and arbitrarily -- used to punish the political 
opposition for its contesting the results of the 2008 presidential 
election, the development assumes even greater significance.  It is 
of course possible that the law will be amended to include 
prosecutors, but then only be applied to defense attorneys.  But we 
will check our cynicism for today, and accept the ruling  as a 
victory for the rule of law in a place -- and at a politically 
sensitive time -- where such victories come few and far between. 
 
YOVANOVITCH