RA Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan, who considers himself from the best lawyers of Armenia, has violated the right of the RA Samansragh, which proved former MIB employee, and the court has proved. We learned about this by studying the verdict that entered into force on March 14 this year. Tert.am writes.
In April of the previous year, Hayk Toroyan applied to the Yerevan Civil Court against the request of the RA Human Rights Defender.
The plaintiff told the court that he received the passports of the positions of the Defender's Office for a number of positions of the RA Human Rights Defender on February 20, 2010 that the name of the passports of the RA human rights activist's staff received the incomplete number of passports. Besides, from 2015 to the day before applying to the Office of the RA Human Rights Defender, the passports of the service posted (including renamed) are at least several times. They asked to specify the clear name of the passport of the required position and the period of concern. Toroyan again applied to the RA Human Rights Defender again, asking the passports of all positions in the Defender's Office since 2015 to present. At the same time, it has demanded that it create artificial difficulties in connection with the realization of its right to receive the information. 14.03.2024 The Secretary General of the RA Human Rights Defender's Office said that the RA Human Rights Defender's Office has been archived in the staff of the RA Human Rights Defender, which is signed by the staff sealed by the staff of the staff and the Secretary General of the Staff. Taking into account that the separation of passport pages is not possible without damaging the integrity of passports and the signature, they said that the passports of the post may be in the staff of the RA Human Rights Defender.
The plaintiff told the court about the violation of his right to information from the RA Constitution, including Article 10 of the RA Law on Freedom of Information on the Requirements of the NR (81).
The representative of the Human Rights Defender presented a response to the court that said the lawsuit was subject to rejection, as the lawsuit is illegal. The defendant explained that the plaintiff did not specify the expected scope of the information, that, instead of the information survey, the passports of all positions required, the legal purpose of "to seek (or)". In addition, the defendant has expressed a legal dispute, as the Ombudsman is ready to find out the plaintiff's plaintiff on the spot, or the plaintiff may be offered to clarify the passports of his / her position on February 20, 2024.
On February 13, 2025, the Yerevan Civil Court, chaired by Judge Kima Arzumanyan, was determined by Hayk Toroyan's lawsuit against the request of the RA Human Rights Defender, to satisfy,
To oblige Hayk Toroyan to provide Hayk Toroyan's information to the RA Human Rights Defender.
The court cited part 1 of Article 42 of the RA Constitution, according to which everyone has the right to express its opinion. This right includes having one's own opinion, as well as the intervention of state and local self-government bodies, regardless of the state boundaries, to seek, receive and distribute information and ideas.
According to Article 51, Part 1 of Article 51, the RA Constitution has the right to receive information on the activities of state and local self-government bodies and officials and get acquainted with the documents.
According to Part 2 of the same article, the right to information may be limited to the law for protecting the basic rights and freedoms of public interests or others.
The court also cited one of the previous decisions of the RA Court of Cassation, which states that the RA Constitution specifically specifically of the manifestations of the right to freedom of speech, to seek information and ideas, any means of information regardless of state borders.
Referring to the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's information was not rejected, the court noted that the information manager did not say that the information manager was not provided to the party that led to the same consequence of the rejection of the information.
Referring to the defendant's argument that the plaintiff did not specify the subject matter, the court said that Hayk Toroyan asked the RA Human Rights Defender to "Provide the passports of all positions in the Defender's Office" in the Defender's Office, that is, the subject matter. The court also noted that the possibility of getting acquainted with the information on the spot for the lawyer, and the refusal of the applicant cannot indicate that the plaintiff does not pursue a legal goal.
As for the respondent's argument that the requested information is large, about 600 newspapers are signed on each passport and signed by the Secretary General of Staff and then the mentioned argument is not enough to consider the rejection of information.
It should be noted that the defendant did not appeal to this court decision and the judicial act entered into force.
