Vol. 100 (2025): State and Law

In the article theoretical and legal aspects of the method of coordination, objectively necessary from the point of view of modern peculiarities of management, but ignored in practice, are investigated from modern scientific and practical aspects. At the same time it is concluded that coordination is seen as a kind of indicator of the degree of democratization of governance and emphasizes that coordination is being squeezed out of public life, especially when not only in the executive branch but also in other branches of government, single-person management becomes dominant through the consolidation of key functions of bodies.

Basically, it is about a method of management that has hardly become a subject of research and is still out of sight of researchers, while it has a clear modern meaning. Accordingly, in the article, the real reasons of the said paradoxical situation were comprehensively examined.

This study has highlighted the basis for the application of the term "coordination" in several meanings and the specific content of each of them. The final part of the article summarizes the features of individual types of coordination and the general features of coordination.

The article presents as concisely as possible the most effective organizational vectors for further improvement of legal, theoretical and practical bases of coordination, overcoming obstacles to the application of this method.

The object of the research is the genesis  of systemic conflicts in the paradigm of the formation of Armenian statehood, with its characteristic methodological and methodical approaches and features.

The subject of the research is the main tendencies of forming Armenian statehood in recent history, the systemic crisis of state administration, the actual trajectory and structure of statehood formation.

The scientific article presents the peculiarities of the cultural originality of the Armenian world in the field of state-building, its role in the world civilization. Parallel paradigms present the phenomenology of the clash of Armenian culture and anti-culture, on the basis of which the crisis of the Armenian statehood is diagnosed, which led to the painful defeat of our country in the 44-day war, disrupted the international legal capacity of our state. At the same time, the article proposes complex methodological solutions to overcome the crisis of Armenian statehood.

The main conclusion of the work is that now, more than ever, the Armenian world needs a spiritual relaunch. It is what is capable of crystallizing the intellectual potential of Armenia, of moving the Armenian people from identity to self-identification, of giving meaning to the standards of Armenian quality.

The reference to the institution of imperative norms established by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia in this scientific article is due to the inconsistent interpretation of these norms in the judicial practice of the RA. The precedent decision of the RA Court of Cassation in the administrative case VD/3882/05/22 directly contradicts the legal regulations of Section 12 of the RA Civil Code and may lead to undesirable consequences in both judicial and notarial practice. Notaries in the RA who refuse to accept powers of attorney issued abroad with a validity period exceeding three years and to perform legally significant actions based on them may face judicial appeals. In turn, judicial authorities will be guided by the precedent decision of the RA Court of Cassation in case VD/3882/05/22, issuing contradictory rulings. There is an urgent need to review the controversial precedent decision of the RA Court of Cassation and to contribute to the development of law as well as the unification of judicial, notarial, and overall legal practice. Legal science plays a significant role in addressing this issue, and from this perspective, the article attempts to scientifically substantiate the vulnerability of the court’s decision and propose solutions to the existing situation.

This article seeks to examine the prerequisites for ensuring effective defense during the trial phase. The authors first analyze the right to defense, its significance, and its role within the framework of criminal procedural principles. Particular attention is paid to the court’s critical role as the guarantor of these principles in securing effective defense.

The study further delves into the restrictions applied to defense counsel, which may arise at either legislative or customary levels. Fundamental principles such as adversarial proceedings, equality of arms, the right to cross-examine witnesses, challenging the admissibility of evidence, delivering closing arguments, and presenting positions on the application or interpretation of the law are identified as crucial components for achieving effective defense.

The authors conclude that the existing regulatory framework for the submission of new evidence—limited exclusively to the phase of supplementing the evidence under review—can be perceived as an unwarranted limitation.

In this article, the author has analyzed the issues related to the legality of the exercise of the right to appeal to court by interested persons. As a result of the study of legal literature, case law of the European Court, and the best practices of countries with Anglo-Saxon and Romance and Germanic legal systems, it was found that modern legal regulations on civil procedure, as a rule, provide for mechanisms that exclude the possibility of appeal to court by non-interested persons, which are absent in the legal system of the Republic of Armenia. The author has found that the implementation of the Convention standards for the effective protection of subjective rights and the need for the legitimate exercise of the right to apply to court require the introduction of civil procedural mechanisms and legal remedies in the RA legal system that exclude the examination of claims submitted by non-interested persons, such as the provision in the RA Civil Procedure Code of legal regulations to refuse to accept a claim on this basis and terminate the proceedings, as well as the application of judicial sanctions and the establishment of a disproportionate burden for the distribution of judicial costs.

This article is devoted to several issues of theoretical and practical application of the principle of “Reasonable Time of Criminal Proceedings”. The mentioned principle was enshrined in the current Code of Criminal Procedure for the first time and has not yet been sufficiently studied in the domestic procedural literature. In addition, in practice, it is often violated due to objective or subjective factors, which naturally gives rise to serious concern. Today, there are numerous cases when judges are subject to disciplinary liability for the fact of violation of a reasonable time in the proceedings they are examining. It is worth noting that the public is quite negatively disposed towards cases of prolonged examination of criminal cases. The fact that the prolonged examination of criminal cases leads to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing a person to criminal liability provided for by the Criminal Code, as a result of which persons who have committed a crime are released from criminal liability, is even more unacceptable. This circumstance belittles the role of justice among the public. Of course, there are also problems that are objective obstacles to the implementation of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time. In particular, the lack of deadlines for conducting preliminary investigations before initiating criminal prosecution, the lengthy implementation of expert examinations, as well as the failure of participants in the proceedings to appear at the trial are problematic. Therefore, it is important to provide guarantees that should ensure the possibility of conducting proceedings within a reasonable time.

The article is dedicated to the principle of officiality of criminal procedure. It presents the modern concept of officiality, discusses the expression of this idea in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, and highlights the tendencies of its development in the context of practical realities.

As a result of the conducted research, the Author states that the modern concept of officiality in criminal procedure is the relative unity of public and private interests. It implies that the criminal proceedings are conducted with the purpose of uncovering the offence and imposing legal consequences for it, and during this process, human rights and freedoms must be guaranteed proportionately. The principle of officiality requires that, on the one hand, the norms governing the procedure of investigation and the powers of criminal prosecution bodies do not unnecessarily endanger human rights, while on the other hand, the guarantees of human rights and freedoms do not excessively limit the procedural possibilities for investigating and uncovering offences.

According to the Author, the concept of officiality in the criminal justice system of the Republic of Armenia is expressed in line with its new concept and reflects the influence of universal tendencies in the correlation of public and private interests. The Author argues that the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Armenia, while strengthening the officiality of criminal proceedings in determining the status of a court, at the same time, for the purpose of alleviating the burden on criminal procedure, has increased the degree of dispositivity by expanding the opportunities of private participants in the proceedings to pre-determine the outcomes of public matters. Criminal procedural legislation and practice clearly bear the tendencies of general development in the relationship between public and private interests, strengthening private interests at the expense of limiting the possibilities for public action.

“Criminal subculture” is an antisocial, instigating phenomenon that not only differs from, but also opposes the general culture, the dominant values. It is obvious that this subculture is the result of criminal and antisocial activity, which survives and is preserved in the criminal environment from generation to generation, it is one of the most serious obstacles to the implementation of the goals of punishment in penitentiary institutions, with its specific value orientations, norms and rules of behavior, and informal stable bonds of offenders. The nature of the prison subculture is conditioned by the specifics of the type of punishment of imprisonment: the forced isolation of people, their inclusion in same-sex groups, and strict regulation of behavior in all spheres of life. The criminal subculture undermines the legal and moral foundations of society, significantly hinders the activities of law enforcement agencies, and keeps society in an atmosphere of fear and terror.

Knowledge of the specifics of the criminal world and the standards of behavior of convicts can help neutralize or reduce the influence of prison subculture, which will allow the administration of penitentiary institutions to clearly, timely, and objectively analyze the pre-criminal situations prevailing in places of imprisonment, monitor them, and take measures to prevent them. One of the necessary conditions for neutralizing or limiting the negative impact of the criminal subculture is the introduction of more humane institutions in the penal legislation. The transition from punitive, restrictive and non-personal means of influence of the penal system to more humane methods towards offenders implies the development of re-socialization programs with serious substantive changes.

The crime against humanity of persecution and the crime of genocide share common roots which go way back to Nuremberg, although both have developed differently. The concept of genocide has remained untouched since the adoption of the Genocide Convention in 1948. The same does not hold true for persecution, whose definition and scope under the Rome Statute is reflective of the historical difficulty in identifying this offence as a stand-alone crime. The early stages of both offences represent two circles that intersect, but the specific intent to destroy a victimised group is what makes genocide to fall into an exclusive and convoluted category of crimes. This article aims at evaluating persecution and genocide from a substantive and technical perspective, with a view to examining the conditions under which the two crimes operate. The assessment may help clarify some critical points concerning the applicability of both offences in the context of crimes committed in a systematic and targeted fashion.