In her interview to “168 Hours” Heriknaz Tigranyan, Legal Adviser of Transparency International Anticorruption Center (TIAC) reflected on some problematic provisions of draft constitutional amendments by comparing the draft constitution with the constitution in force. In certain cases the ambiguity of formulations causes concern, for instance regarding the issue on deprivation of ownership. The formulation of social economic right is also of concern. According to the draft constitution the sphere of human rights is coordinated and the restrictions to rights are mentioned. Any restriction should be purposeful and imposed out of necessity in a democratic society. Nevertheless, there is no mention in the draft constriction that the restriction was based on a necessary in a democratic society.

The provision “institute of expropriation of property for prevailing public interests when a person is deprived of ownership for the sake of public interest” is stipulated in draft constitution. It is problematic that one may be deprived of ownership by “prior judicial control.” There is no clarification what prior judicial control is, what should be controlled and when? One may be deprived of property only by court procedure and in case of prevailing public interests only with prior adequate compensation. Here new institute of “prior judicial control” is introduced. Neither its mechanisms nor its idea is generally precise. It may imply easy way of depriving a person of his/her property.

See the interview in “168 Hours.”