Constitutional court judge`s question to opposition sparks debate  during election appeal hearings

ArmInfo. The Constitutional Court continues to hear the case challenging the results of the June 7 parliamentary elections. The parties are  currently discussing the questions posed by the Constitutional Court judges themselves.

During the session, Judge Seda Safaryan addressed representatives of  the opposition forces: "I ask you to explain what influence the  statements made by the President of the Russian Federation and  several high- ranking officials before the election—and even much  earlier—might have had on the election results and the formation of  the voters' free will. These statements primarily defended these  three political forces, and they did not even hide it. Why was this  factor overlooked in the arguments of your petition?"

Aram Orbelyan, representing the "Prosperous Armenia" party, responded  by urging the court to stop equating the three opposition political  forces. "We submitted a petition regarding the scale of violations in  the electoral process, which is currently under consideration by the  Constitutional Court. Six other political forces have also submitted  petitions presenting their arguments regarding violations. The  narrative regarding these 'three political forces' belongs only to  one party—'Civil Contract.' Its use by a Constitutional Court judge,  in light of new facts, may compel me to petition the court for the  recusal of Seda Safaryan from these hearings.

Regarding foreign interference, I presented one of the points and  explicitly stated that there was only one case where a political  force nominally received support and used that support in the  electoral process. The presidents of two foreign countries have no  right to participate in the electoral process of the Republic of  Armenia under either international law or electoral law," he said.

In turn, Aram Vardevanyan, representing the "Strong Armenia" bloc,  demanded clarification from the Constitutional Court following Judge  Safaryan's question: he asked whether the court was addressing a  political issue or a legal one. According to the lawyer, such a  question might be appropriate for representatives of the "Civil  Contract" party, but not for a judge of the Constitutional Court.  Vardevanyan announced that he would propose that the court reconsider  the participation of Seda Safaryan in these proceedings. "The fact  that such a question is being posed not within the framework of a  petition, but as a counter-argument or comparison, raises concerns  regarding the judge's impartiality," Vardevanyan noted.

Recall, the Constitutional Court is currently discussing an appeal  from seven political forces demanding a review of the parliamentary  election results.