Society should be informed how courts execute justice. Consequently, justice should be administered publicly. However, there are cases in the course of the activity of the courts of the Republic of Armenia when even an interested party – the representative of the affected person, fails to get necessary information.

The Court of First Instance of Yerevan “Erebuni” and “Nubarashen” Communities did not have appropriate technical facilities for document copying. Refusal with such substantiation was given to Arman Krmoyan who requested the Court to provide the materials of the criminal case instituted in relation to the death of his wife died as a result of surgical operation. On the 12^th of April 2006 instead of hugging his newly born child he single father was forced to ‘hug’ a copy-making machine and took it to the Court to realize his right to get information and supplement the technical facilities of the Court.

The principles of justice publicity and judicial acts accessibility are secured by the RA legislation. Article 19 of the RA Constitution establishes that “Everyone shall have a right to restore his/her violated rights, and to reveal the grounds of the charge against him/her in a fair public hearing under the equal protection of the law and fulfilling all the demands of justice by an independent and impartial court within a reasonable time”. Since court verdicts, judgments and decisions are the integral part of the examination of the case, so this constitutional norm is also immediately related to them. According to Article 8 of the RA Civil Procedure Code “…in courts civil cases are considered in open trial….” except for some exclusion. The Code envisages that court verdict should be published at open-door session. Consequently, the participants of the case and other people, who were present at court session, listen to the court verdict, and, it is natural, may reproduce it making a public domain.

However, in practice, there are also cases like those described below. For example, it took Mane Madoyan and FOI Center two months to get the copy of the verdict of the RA Economic Court on recognizing “Youth Palace” CJSC insolvent. Although the official web site of the Economic Court contains numerous decisions, the judge Karine Petrosyan, who examined the case, notified in writing that the court verdict would not be provided since Article 28 of the RA Civil Procedure Code established that the copies of the case materials were entitled only to the persons participating in the case. The verdict of the RA Economic Court on recognizing “Youth Palace” CJSC insolvent was provided to the FOI Center only after the judge was reminded of the existence of website and payment of 800 drams of state duty.

Can persons not participating in the case get acquainted with the materials of the judicial case? The legislation provides such right only to the persons participating in the case. If persons not participating in the case can be present at court session, listen to the verdict, then what is the reason of keeping judicial acts closed, not providing them to the citizens not associated with the case, thus prejudicing the publicity of court work and accessibility of judicial acts? It seems that Article 28 of the RA Civil Procedure Code enables to refuse the inquiries on judicial acts made by persons not participating in the case, establishing that persons participating in the case have the right to get acquainted with the materials of the case and get copies thereof. However such right of the persons participating in the case does not exclude the right of the persons not participating in the case to get acquainted with the materials of the case and get copies thereof. Interpretation of Article 28 of the Code, to the detriment of citizens, contradicts the 2^nd part of Article 42 of the RA Constitution, which states that “Everyone is free to act in way not prohibited by the law and not violating the rights and freedoms of others”. Since the code or law does not prohibit persons not participating in the case from getting the court documents, then it is assumed they have this right. The RA Criminal Procedure Code does not envisage the right of persons not participating in the case to get acquainted with the materials of the case either. Such right is reserved only to the parties of legal procedure. In this case the right of persons not participating in the case to get acquainted with the materials of the case is not restricted either, and the 2^nd part of Article 42 of the RA Constitution becomes applicable here. Everyone’s right to get acquainted with the materials of the judicial case is also secured b the 2nd part of Article 27 of the RA Constitution, which reads as follows: “Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, including the freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas through any medium of information, regardless of state borders.” It should be noted that the RA Constitution has supreme legal effect and its norms are directly applicable (part 2, Article 6 of the RA Constitution).

To clarify the accessibility level of judicial acts, in 2006 the FOI Center sent inquiries to all the courts of the first instance of the Republic of Armenia to get information. 7 courts of the first instance in the capital city were requested to provide copies of judgments made in relation to cases against mass media, as well as cases connected with insult and/or slander/libel; and regional (marz) courts were requested to provide copies of judgments made in relation to bribe. All the courts answered our inquiries for getting information, but 4 of them delayed with reply for 2 months. Moreover,   these 4 were Yerevan courts.

Regional (marz) courts are better coordinated and work better. The courts of the first instance in Armavir and Tavush regions replied our inquiries in 5-day period; courts in Vayots Dzor, Gegharkunik, Shirak, Syunik and Aragatsotn – up to 10 days; courts in Lori and Kotayk – up to 20 days. 5 days after our inquiry we got a letter from the court of the first instance in Ararat marz, which stated that the FOI Center’s inquiry had been sent to the Chief of Staff of the RA Court of Appeal Mr. E. Sedrakyan. 10 days after this we got the second letter from the Ararat Court attached to which we got the judgments made in relation to bribes. We sent another inquiry to Lori Court of the First Instance with the request to provide information on judicial acts for the cases pertaining to freedoms, to which the Court replied within 10 days.

The Courts of the First Instance of “Kentron” and “Nork-Marash”, “Erebuni” and “Nubarashen”, “Malatia Sebastia”, “Arabkir” and “Kanaker-Zeytun” communities delayed with the provision of the requested information for more than two months. It became clear that the courts were waiting for appropriate letter from the Court of Appeal allowing them to provide the requested copies of relevant judicial acts. The FOI Center was forced to apply to Mr. E. Sedrakyan – Chief of Staff of the RA Court of Appeal, as well as to the chairmen of all the mentioned courts to include the officials violated the RA Law “On Freedom of Information” in the “black list”. In few days Mr. Sedrakyan replied to our inquiry, sending appropriate letters to the courts with the request to provide the requested information in the manner prescribed by the law within the shortest possible time. The request of Mr. Sedrakyan was very quickly satisfied by the courts. Non-provision of information by the courts of the first instance of “Malatia Sebastia”, “Arabkir” and “Kanaker-Zeytun” communities is unclear, since, as it turned out from their replies, there were no judicial cases examined against mass media and related to insult and/or slander/libel.

In general 18 inquiries were sent to the courts of the first instance of the Republic of Armenia requesting to provide copies of judicial acts. Of the 11 inquiries the courts answered that no such cases entered and examined by the court, thus, there were no judicial acts thereon.  For the rest 7 inquiries the courts provided copies of 11 court verdicts, judgments or decisions. Justice publicity and accessibility of judicial acts may contribute to the increase of the authority judges and judicial system. On this mostly depends the trust of citizens towards the judicial system.