OPEN LETTER
to Gagik Harutyunyan, Chairman of the Contest Commission responsible for nominating candidates by the Republic of Armenia for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights

Members: Arman Mkrtumyan
Alvina Gyulumyan
Karen Andreasyan
Hovhannes Manukyan
Gevorg Kostanyan
Ara Zohrabyan
Ruben Melikyan
Hrachik Sargsyan

Dear Mr. Harutyunyan and Commission members,

On October 7-8, 2014, after summing up the results of the second, interview stage of selection process, the Contest Commission (hereinafter, "the Commission") for nominating candidates by the Republic of Armenia for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the ECtHR”) drew up a list of three candidates and presented it for the approval of RA President, which was approved on October 13, 2014.

We, the undersigned, disseminated a statement upon completion of the first, documentation stage of the contest, back on September 30, 2014, voicing our concerns over adhering to the principles of transparency and the public’s right to be informed for selecting nominated candidate of Armenia’s judge to ECtHR. Despite some steps taken to meet those principles (access to the applications and to journal for registering visitors’ entrance/exit to RA Ministry of Justice or to videotaping interviews), the equality of conditions, legality of the process and fairness of selection of the candidates, nonetheless caused serious public concerns with the public, which in particular, were substantiated in the monitoring findings, reflected in the preliminary report by “Europe in Law Association” human rights NGO .[1]

In order to disperse public doubt and based on every citizen’s right to seek and receive information, pursuant to Article 27 of RA Constitution and RA Law on Freedom of Information, as well as right to submit letters to the authorized public bodies and to receive appropriate replies to them in a reasonable time, stipulated by Article 27.1, we request you to clarify the following issues:

1. According to media reports the number of applicants was 11 after the deadline for receiving the candidates’ applications - September 24, 6:00 pm, whereas in 3 days the number of applicants was 14 according to the published official information. Various, contradictory explanations were provided on the suspicious growth of the number of applicants by Commission member and RA Minister of Justice Hovhannes Manukyan[2], RA Ministry of Justice Press Secretary Tsovinar Khachatryan[3], the Head of RA Ministry of Justice Inspectorate for Oversight over Legality Mikayel Minasyan[4], and by the last candidates registered in the journal[5]. We request you to clarify the above mentioned contradictory interpretations and provide credible information to public on the change in the list of applicants.

2. According to President’s Decree NH-199-N dated August 2, 2014 the documents sent by mail are considered to be submitted in due time if the staff had received them before the deadline of the due time, whereas the Commission interpreted that the deadline for receiving applications – September 24, 2014, 6:00 pm – was set up only for the applications received “in person.” We request you to clarify if the Commission had a right and on what legal basis it interpreted President’s Decree NH-199-N dated August 2, 2014 and considered that the applications received by mail after the deadline were also considered as received in due time.

3. According to Minutes #3 of the Commission not all the contenders were given all the questions set up by evaluation criteria, however, based on the high grades they received, one may infer that the replies to those questions were also evaluated. Did the Commission provide equal conditions and fair selection for the participants by manifesting such approach? Based on what were the replies to the questions that were not asked to candidates evaluated?

4. Inviting two of the candidates to the Commission after the interview, i.e. the second stage of the contest under the pretext of checking completeness of documents and having tete-a-tete conversation with them and asking for explanation is an obvious violation of the President’s Decree. Did the Commission have a right to call the contenders after the contest (11:00 pm at night) for explanation? On what legal basis, and for what purpose did the commission call them?

5. There is no established order for selecting specialists to test the candidates’ language proficiency. Accordingly, how and what criteria was the Commission guided by in choosing specialists?

6. Did the Commission members state on conflict of interests and abstain from voting? If yes, we request you to publish the information, if no, we ask you to mention how were the issues regarding conflict of interests settled?

7. How do you substantiate failing to provide information to the organization that carried out public oversight over the contest, in the given case to “Europe in Law Association” human rights NGO? Why are the minutes of the Commission meetings, videotapes of the Commission interviews ( except Minutes # 3), the evaluation papers filled in by the Commission members regarding every contender, the voting for the Commission members on separate issues and other requested information kept in secret. How does the Commission substantiate the legality of the contest under such secrecy?

We expect to receive your reply on the above-mentioned inquiries within 5-day term stipulated by Article 9 of RA Law on Freedom of Information.

“Transparency International Anticorruption Center” NGO
Journalists’ Club “Asparez” NGO
“New Generation” Humanitarian NGO
“Guarantee" Center of Civil Society NGO
“Foundation Against Violation of Law” NGO
“Collaboration for Democracy” NGO
“Spitak Helsinki Group” human rights NGO
“Ecological Right” NGO
“Women's Support Center” NGO
“Commission to Protect Freedom of Expression” NGO
Tsovinar Nazaryan, activist, “Woman of Courage” awardee 2012
Ara Zakaryan, attorney
Nikolay Baghdasaryan, attorney
Lusine Sahakyan, attorney
Yervand Varosyan, attorney
Hayk Alumyan, attorney
Liparit Simonyan, attorney
Armen Soghomonyan, attorney
Avag Lalayan, attorney
Tigran Atanesyan, attorney
Tigran Muradyan, attorney
Tigran Hayrapetyan, attorney
Narine Rshtuni, attorney
Ruben Rshtuni, attorney
Nona Galstyan, attorney
Tigran Safaryan, attorney

[1] http://ela.am/image/data/Publications/2014.10.23_%20Final%20Report_arm%20%281%29.pdf
[2] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzBv1KLlRos, 8:00-9:16 minutes
[3] See http://civilnet.am/2014/09/28/echr-judges-selection-armenia/#.VE9zyRaLViw, 3:16-3:56 minutes
[4] See http://www.aravot.am/2014/10/04/503342/
[5] See Nora Karapetyan’s interpretation under article http://www.aravot.am/2014/10/04/503342/ in the section of interpretations and Arayik Melkumyan’s interpretation in 02:58-03:08 minutes of http://www.azatutyun.am/content/article/26625915.html.