The RA Constitutional Court's ruling on the Armenian-Turkish Protocols is Armenia’s legal assessment of the documents, said Ara Papian, head of Modus Vivendi center.
“I agree with Mr. Philip Gordon that the RA CC ruling doesn’t hamper ratification of the Protocols. The Court resolved that establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of the border do not conflict with the Constitution of Republic of Armenia,” he said, adding that the Constitutional Court's legal reasoning has the same juridical force as the conclusion.
The Protocols aimed at normalization of bilateral ties and opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey were signed in Zurich by Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, after a series of diplomatic talks held through Swiss mediation. On January 12, 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia found the protocols conformable to the country’s Organic Law.
Commenting on the decision of the Armenian Constitutional Court, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that “the decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols.”
”The decision undermines the very reason for negotiating these Protocols as well as their fundamental objective. This approach cannot be accepted on our part. Turkey, in line with its accustomed allegiance to its international commitments, maintains its adherence to the primary provisions of these Protocols. We expect the same allegiance from the Armenian Government,” the Ministry said.
Meanwhile, the United States welcomed the ruling by Armenia’s Constitutional Court, effectively dismissing Turkey’s claims that it runs counter to the Turkish-Armenian fence-mending agreements. “We view the court decision as a positive step forward in the ratification process of the normalization protocols between Turkey and Armenia,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon said. “The court decision permits the protocols, as they were negotiated and signed, to move forward towards parliamentary ratification, and does not appear to limit or qualify them in any way.”
