- Mr. Baghdasaryan, there are rather contradictory opinions about the version of the Constitution that was sent to the Venice Commission. How do you evaluate the last corrections made and do they correspond to the requirements of the Venice Commission?

I consider it normal that there are contradictory opinions, we have democracy in our country, and each political force is free to express its viewpoint that comes from its philosophy of its activity. I find that the corrections made to the constitutional reforms of the version being presented for the second reading of, first of all, will create prerequisites for positive changes in our country. The draft sent to the Venice Commission is a seriously edited document. The first pivotal issue concerns the separation of power wings and forming an efficient system of checks and balances. According to the draft, the RA President can appoint as a Prime Minister only a person, who enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Parliament. The President cannot dismiss the Prime Minister and the Government without the agreement of the National Assembly.This is a very significant reform, which increases the role of the National Assembly and makes the legislative power an essential balance. I consider also important the reform in the sphere of judicial power, according to which, the judicial power becomes independent from the executive power, the Justice Council will have 13 members, nine of which are elected at the general meeting of judges, the other two members are appointed by the National Assembly, and the RA President appoints the last two members. The Chairman of the Cassation Court presides the sittings of the Justice Council without a right to vote. These are also important reforms. The third group refers to the local self-government. The draft clearly states that Yerevan is a community. And the leaders of communities are elected. So, the problem of the mayor being elected is exhaustively resolved. There are two approaches to this issue: direct and indirect election. Both of them are accepted and popular in the international practice. I am for the indirect election, as it will enable to develop the political system and elect the leader of the community through the representative body. This problem will be solved by law. The important thing is that it’s clearly stated that the position of the Mayor of Yerevan is elective, and it was as both the opposition’s and the Venice Commission’s proposal.

Rafik Petrosyan, the Chairman of the NA Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs and some other MPs of the coalition accused Tigran Torosyan of acting on his own and attempting to privatize the Constitution. What is your attitude towards such situation in NA around the draft Constitution?

- I consider such estimates unacceptable, in general. And not only because they occupy leading positions at the NA and are members of the same party, but also because I consider the constitutional debates as the most serious issue concerning the future destiny of the country and the people, and in the sense of the choice of the road, and I don’t think it’s correct to create such an atmosphere round the constitutional debates. What refers to Tigran Torosyan, he has not privatized anything, according to the signed memorandum, the authors of the draft work with the Venice Commission.

- Have you personally participated in the reform of the version of the Constitution?

- Naturally yes, as the Speaker of the National Assembly and as the leader of one of the coalition’s political forces. I am convinced that each political force has to do its best being concerned in the problems of deepening the constitutional reforms, so that the country’s Constitution corresponds to the logic of the political, economic, historical and cultural development of the country, express those developments and push them forward. Naturally, being interested in making Armenia a country of law, I have to do my best so that the Basic Law of the country, which is the source of all other laws, corresponds to the real demands of the country and to the European standards.

- How do you evaluate the statement of the opposition that the last constitutional amendments do not correspond neither to the principles of Venice Commission nor to the three principles brought forward by themselves? Also the statement that if version of the Constitution is not reformed before the second reading, they will not take part in the debates and may call the people to say no to this version.

- I think that the procedure of the constitutional reforms has been exhaustively covered, also thanks to the efficient work of the media. It has presented the opinions of the power, of the opposition, of Venice Commission experts, the estimations of these opinions, estimations of the estimations… There will be nothing said anymore. I think that at this moment the opposition does not estimate the Constitution or the changes made to its draft, but it tries to answer to a whole different and more essential question: how long will the boycott last and why? As long as there is no acceptable answer for all the opposition forces to this question, there will be different approaches. Eventually each political force and actor decides itself the tactics and the strategy of its political struggle.

Diana Markosyan