Those who closely follow the ups and downs of the judicial reform in Kyrgyzstan couldn't help but note another creative, which came "from above." Group of lawyers of White House decided to withdraw the Constitutional Chamber of the judicial system, turning it into an advisory and consultative body. Experts see in this attempt of post-April authorities to abandon democratic path and return the country to authoritarian government.
And it doesn't matter whose fault it is
Today, the Constitutional Chamber is a part of the Supreme Court and its decisions can't be appealed. During the activity of the Constitutional Chamber Board of the KR, consisting of 12 judges, made its verdict on such resonant issues as punishment for false report, initiated by deputies, or deputy groups and the decrees of the interim government.
And if the first two decisions were made with the use of legislation, the decrees of favorites of the Constitutional Chamber signed for cowardly impotence and engagement.
According to the verdict of the Constitutional Chamber, the interim government's decrees don't have formal legal acts and can't be the subject of judicial proceedings in the framework of a constitutional or any other kind of legal proceedings. In addition, these decrees nationalized a number of objects just because that time leader of the interim government Azimbek Beknazarov, affiliated with the deposed President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and his entourage, wanted so. As the head of the legal clinic "Adilet" Cholpon Dzhakupova said, all we can do - to sympathize judges of the Constitutional Chamber. Because they are dependent on the will of leaders of the executive and legislative branches of government. "There are principles. They are worked out on paper. But how they a body that is totally dependent on the legislative and executive branches of government can be guided by it?" the expert said.
As you name the boat, so shall it float
However, the assertion of human rights activists that the Constitutional Chamber - structure, controlled by certain persons in the power, doesn't mean that it should be abolished.
With the transformation of the Constitutional Chamber in some strange body, the area where it will be possible to resolve political disputes disappears.
According to the deputy of the parliament Kurmanbek Osmonov, extrajudicial solutions of organizations are advisory in nature, even if they have a grandiose name as the Constitutional Council.
Domestic lawyers are supported by experts of the Venice Commission. According to Professor Arthur Djevr, in deciding on the Elimination of the Constitutional Chamber as a judicial authority the Kyrgyz authorities commit a gross error. His colleague Slavica Bunch, comparing Kyrgyzstan with Croatia noted the similarity of the constitutions of the two countries. According to her, the Croatian Parliament had previously attempted to interfere with the operation of the courts and make them dependent through legislation. "Croatia had a lot of problems with the principle of separation of powers. As in Kyrgyzstan, we had established the basis of the constitutional order, the power is also limited by local authorities. But politicians in Croatia for a long time didn't understand what it means," she said.
According to her, thanks to the fact that the Constitutional Court rejected the initiative, Themis was able to restore the status quo and maintain its independence. "The Constitutional Court laid down the principles of the rule of law and wrote what separation of powers is," Slavica Bunch added.
I am the king
Venice Commission experts believe that removal of the Constitutional Chamber from a number of judicial bodies will strengthen powers of the president and lead to withdrawal from parliamentarianism. Arthur Djevr, who arrived in Kyrgyzstan with a delegation of the Venice Commission, stressed that the Constitutional Court is very important for the Kyrgyz Republic, as a country in transition. If the Constitutional Chamber is closed, all the levers of power will be concentrated in the same hands.
"The withdrawal of the Constitutional Chamber from the judicial branch would be a signal of return to the presidential form of government and lead to cancellation of the parliamentary form of government. Some other countries have a constitutional council as well. And it can be attributed to the third chamber of the parliament, not to the Constitutional Court. It is always very politicized body, because most of its members - former political figures," Mr. Djevr added.
Turn a deaf ear
However, in Kyrgyzstan, people look skeptical on advice of the Venice Commission. Not that they were not the case, it really just become the custom - political establishment doesn't really listen to exhortations of learned scholars from abroad. "The recommendations are good, but no one executes them here in Kyrgyzstan," Cholpon Dzhakupova said.
The deputy Ravshan Zheenbekov agreed with her. However, he advised the members of the Venice Commission to publish their comments and monitor their account. "In general, all the initiatives - in particular, such as elimination of the Constitutional Chamber, - proceed from team of the president. And it is a return to authoritarianism, obvious by the way," he concluded.
Not for example
The commission's members didn't assess the attempts of the president to redraw the Constitution once again, lifting moratorium on making amendments to the Basic Law before 2020. Recall, in the elections-2015 it is planned to hold a simultaneous referendum, where conscious citizens will be offered to vote for the proposed amendments.
Why is the "father" of the Constitution Omurbek Tekebayev agreed to give his "child" under the knife, another matter, the main thing is whether the next cancellation of the document will clean up the political system of the Kyrgyz Republic. Here, members of the commission, even compared Kyrgyzstan with Haiti, they say that this country is a champion in rewriting the Constitution. But Haiti as it was, and remains the poorest country in the world, tormented by civil wars.
As it seems
Analysts believe that intention to remove the Constitutional Chamber as a judicial body is caused not only by a desire to strengthen presidential power and gradually switch to a presidential form, but also by the fact that the measures taken under this pretext future people's deputies laws can not be challenged.
Although, in case of our Constitutional Chamber, there is not much of a difference whether it exists or not. Concerning the resonant issues its board will always make only those decisions that are pleasing to the "top". And what does it matter then, how to call this body: chamber or council? Another thing is that "sentences" of the council do not belong to the category of binding.