Constitutional Court cannot nullify Declaration of Independence, says chief justice

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 14, ARMENPRESS. The Constitutional Court has not and cannot nullify the Declaration of Independence, chief justice Arman Dilanyan has said.

Dilanyan, the president of the Constitutional Court, commented on claims arguing that the high court, with its September 26 decision on the Armenia-Azerbaijan delimitation regulation, nullified the Declaration of Independence.

Dilanyan denied the claims during a press briefing on November 14.

“No one can nullify the Declaration of Independence. There is only one subject that can do so, it is the people,” he said.

Chief justice Dilanyan said he regrets that the opinions of the 8 justices were not covered by the media, unlike those of the 3 other justices.

“Around that decision I actually noticed everything but any serious legal criticism or arguments. I didn’t come across a legal argument on why that decision is wrong, in their opinion,” the chief justice said.

He said the high court, in its decision, has said what has existed for thirty years. In addition, according to Dilanyan, a number of contradictions emerge in case of viewing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in the same legal dimension.

“The Constitution has been perceived as a document of supreme legal force in Armenia, and the Declaration of Independence has never been part of the Constitution in its entirety. If we were to compare the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in terms of its contents and try to fit them in the same dimension of legal force, I couldn’t imagine how you would resolve those contradictions,” he said, adding that the Constitutional Court simply looked into the issue for the first time in detail and stipulated the existing reality.

On September 26, the high court ruled that the Armenia-Azerbaijan regulation on the joint activity of the border delimitation commissions complies with the Constitution.The decision also mentions the Declaration of Independence as a circumstance subject to clarification in the case, which caused criticism.