"Fact" daily writes:
Recently, the discussions regarding the property and legal disputes arising around the representatives of the government system have become active again in the public field. The problem has long gone beyond the scope of individual cases and turned into a systemic question: is there universal application of the law in Armenia or is there "selective justice"?
For many, the question is actually rhetorical. In particular, one of the last stories on the agenda refers to the property issue related to the bankruptcy process.
According to the circulating information, we are talking about property worth around 90 million drams, which is related to a person who is in the process of bankruptcy. It is noted that this property is not inventoried, despite the fact that such a procedure is mandatory and is aimed at meeting the demands of creditors.
It is in this context that the name of Sasun Mikayel Yan, the representative of the ruling power of Armenia, the president of the "Yerkrapah" volunteer union, appeared in the center of discussions.
According to the same sources, the above-mentioned property is located in the territory under his control, and it is precisely because of this circumstance that the possible obstruction of the inventory process is caused.
6:00 Paused The political component of the problem becomes key here.
When such stories involve representatives of the government, the issue is no longer limited to a legal dispute. It immediately turns into a crisis of confidence: will an ordinary citizen in the same situation have the same "opportunities" or not? Expert circles have long circulated the assessment that a selective approach to the application of law has been formed in Armenia. In other words, the same law can operate in a different way depending on the political or administrative influence of a person.
In such situations, any similar case is perceived not as an exception, but as a pattern. If the leaked information is confirmed, it would mean that one of the key mechanisms of the bankruptcy process, the full inventory of assets, could be bypassed through leverage.
This can have serious consequences not only for specific creditors, but also for the entire economic system, undermining confidence in the business environment and the investment field. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize that the presumption of innocence applies until the evaluation of the law enforcement agencies and the decision of the court. However, this does not eliminate the requirement of public control and transparency.
On the contrary, in such cases, the quick, public and reasoned response of the law enforcement officers is more important to exclude any doubts about selective justice. This story once again brings up a fundamental question: is the political system of Armenia able to separate power and private interests?
If state or political influence is used to solve private economic issues, it is a serious blow not only to the legal system, but also to public trust in state institutions. After all, the problem is not only about one case or one person. The problem is systemic. And the longer such questions remain unanswered or unfinished, the more the conviction deepens that the law in Armenia does not work for everyone, but selectively.
The legislation of Armenia is quite clear in this matter. Bankruptcy law stipulates that all of a debtor's assets are subject to inventory and inclusion in the bankruptcy estate to ensure the protection of creditors' rights.
Concealing property or obstructing an inventory may be considered a legal violation and lead to liability. In addition, the Criminal Code provides for responsibility for the abuse of official powers, as well as for obstructing the administration of justice. If any official or influential figure uses his position to influence legal proceedings, such behavior may have criminal legal consequences.
