"Four years later, the Constitutional Court finally decided on the constitutionality of the Law on the Law on Property of Illegal Property. Only the final part of the decision of the Constitutional Court has been published, the whole decision will be published on April 20. According to the final, the Constitutional CC believes that the 3rd-6 (5) of the Law on the Law of Article 24 of the Law corresponds to the report that the property acquired on the basis of the relevant official was subject to confection. Article 5 of Article 5 of the Law on the Determination of Property of Illegal, in combination with Article 24 of the Law, correspond to the conclusion that the property that has corresponding to the correspondence shall be subject to confiscation. Within the framework of the law "On the Law on Property of Importance of Illegal Origin", the applicant's disputed, within the framework of the justifications on them, the Constitution is in accordance with the constitution.
The first court session of YSU Faculty of Justice, former member of the RA Faculty of Justice, was held at the Anti-Corruption Court of Justice, and the first court hearing of the confiscated property of the Armenian Justice Council. This decision of the Constitutional Court refers to a large number of officials, including many-year-old Dean Gagazinyan. According to the proceedings, Ghazinyan was considered an official from 2013 from the moment of electing the RA Justice Council. In other words, the property obtained after that is a study, but not ahead, but the actual prosecutor's office has begun studying not to hold a position, but since 1992. Hraparak talked to Gagik Ghazinyan in this regard.
- Such an interpretation of the Constitutional Court was predictable to you.
- I was expecting much more. When initiating a proceedings, the materials and conditions of operative intelligence measures are taken on the basis of the decision of the Constitutional Court on the final part of them. The consulting opinions of the Venice Commission, the ECHR, the materials presented by the Prosecutor's Office are a certain concern in terms of terms. Imagine the study of property starts in 2020-2021, but before 1991 they go, to what extent this is a very important issue of proving, which must prove.
- Especially when the condition of the archives, to put it mildly, was bad, no digitalization was made, documents were not preserved.
- Yes, we all know what was happening in the 1990s, and there could be no question about coordinated archiving. I don't know, the Constitutional Court has touched upon all this, at least that does not appear in the final part.
- Before, the Constitutional Court published the decision, on the principle of arbitrariness, the Prosecutor's Office was taken to a large number of former officials, to confiscate their property, and to go to court, and many of the property were detained. If the Constitutional Court numbers that the prosecutor's office has been wrong, the money will return.
- How did they take it if the person came to an agreement with the state, and the state did not agree to return to some percentage of property, which the state is talking about the postcard if they have given their desire to the state. According to my information, there is no judicial act that has entered into force yet.
"How does Pashinyan tear throat?"
- Are there any returned property as a result of the agreement? I have said several times, I do not comment on the stupid nonsense. It is my official opinion. Let him be good, justify how he returned. How did $ 2 billion return if people have agreed and given to the state? This does not mean that there is a legal decision to enter into force. A normal person, a smart person will allow himself to comment on the words of that type.
HG. Let us remind you that even in 2022. At the beginning, the opposition deputies challenge the law in the Constitutional Court to consider the issue of the law of the law. It seems that the law on people's property, which can affect their quality of life, to prose their rights, the CC should have been prioritizing that the process did not have irreversible consequences, but the high court made the case. It turned out to the Venice Commission to get an advisory opinion to take the time. 2022 In December, the Venice Commission gave its opinion, which was more political, diplomatic, but there were some observations that the law is problematic. For example, the commission touched upon the initializing the origin of the property until 1991, said that it was a problem that would not be so vague and unpredictable, one more than 10-15 years from the moment the research be started.
