Andreasian was among six senior state officials who tendered resignation three days after Pashinian publicly lambasted Armenian courts and law-enforcement bodies for what he called a continuing lack of “justice” in the country. Pashinian said on November 22 that he “asked” Andreasian to step down because he is unhappy with some court decisions.
Opposition leaders and some legal experts believe that the “request” constituted illegal interference in the work of the judiciary. They say it also shows that the Supreme Judicial Council (SCJ), which is supposed to guarantee judicial independence, is in fact controlled by Pashinian.
Under Armenian law, the new head of the SJC must be elected by a majority of the fellow members of the judicial oversight body. An SJC statement released late on Thursday said none of the five candidates vying for the vacant post garnered enough support during two rounds of voting.
A new vote will therefore be organized in the coming days or weeks. It is not yet clear who will enter the fray again. The SJC will continue to be run by its oldest member, Karen Tumanian, in the interim.
Newspaper reports said that Pashinian’s preferred candidate for the job is Artur Atabekian, one of the five judges sitting on the SJC. According to the Zhoghovurd daily, Atabekian is a nephew of Vahe Ghalumian, a pro-government lawmaker and figure close to Pashinian.
Pashinian’s Civil Contract party also raised questions about the Armenian government’s stated commitment to judicial independence earlier this month when it nominated a controversial lawyer affiliated with it for one of the three vacant seats in the 10-member SJC.
The lawyer, Aleksandr Sirunian, is a staunch supporter of Pashinian. He is notorious for using profanities to attack government critics, including senior clergymen of the Armenian Apostolic Church, on social media. Sirunian has deleted those Facebook posts lately, posting instead pictures of Pashinian and his top loyalists.
During Andreasian’s two-year tenure, the SJC fired dozens of judges who fell foul of the government. Critics said the sackings were aimed at tightening the government’s grip on the judicial branch. In his resignation statement, Andreasian claimed that they on the contrary strengthened the judiciary as part of “reforms” praised by Western officials.