ADELINA SARGSYAN

PhD in Law,

Lecturer at the Department of Criminal Law and

Criminal Procedure Law Institute of Law and Politics of the

Russian-Armenian University

VARAZDAT SUKIASYAN

PhD in Law,

Lecturer at the Department of Criminal Law and

Criminal Procedure Law Institute of Law and Politics of the

Russian-Armenian University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-134

Annotation.

This article analyzes some principles of international criminal law that create grounds for bringing persons to criminal responsibility for committing international crimes. The article analyzes the practice of international criminal law, the compliance of national criminal legislation with established international practice and the provisions of the Rome Statute. Based on the conducted research, the vectors of improvement of criminal legislation and the practice of its application are outlined. The principle of commander’s responsibility is analyzed, in particular, in the context of Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia Inaction during an armed conflict. This principle is of fundamental importance both in international criminal law and in national law, since commanders have an obligation to take the necessary measures to prevent violations by subordinates. Analyzing the principle of the inadmissibility of references to official position, the authors note that the domestic immunities granted to officials are aimed at providing them with guarantees from prosecution by national criminal justice authorities, but should not apply when jurisdiction is exercised by the International Criminal Court. It is necessary to establish in legislation that the extradition of persons to the ICC will not be equated to the usual extradition process to a foreign State.

PDF

MELIK MELIKYAN

Acting Chief Specialist of the Legal Expert Examinations Service,

Staff of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia,

Candidate of Legal Sciences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-125

Annotation.

Being a multilayered and complex phenomenon, the provocation of a crime often gives rise to contradictory approaches and various problems in both theoretical and practical aspects.

It is noteworthy that in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, adopted on May 5, 2021, provisions were included that had no precedent in domestic law before. These new regulations require in-depth research into the discussed phenomenon and the establishment of sufficient clarity to ensure its consistent application in practice.

Innovations concerning the provocation of a crime were introduced in both the General and Special Parts of criminal law, including within the context of circumstances excluding criminal liability.

In this context, with the aim of improving the provisions related to the legal regulation of the provocation of a crime—and combining the approaches found in various legal sources—it is first necessary to identify the potential gaps within these provisions and to propose scientifically grounded theses and recommendations, which form the objectives of this work.

As a result of the research conducted, it was possible to achieve the aforementioned goals and to reveal the problems existing within this scope. At the same time, relevant legislative improvement proposals aimed at solving these issues have been presented, which can contribute to the further development of law in this area.

PDF

MARC AZDARIDIS

Advocate, Member of the Chamber of Advocates of the Republic of Armenia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-99

Annotation.

The article is dedicated to the new aggravating circumstance, which is a qualitative characteristic of a number of crimes provided for by the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia adopted on May 5, 2021, namely, committing the act with the use of a weapon or an object or means prepared or adapted in advance to cause bodily harm. The relevance of the chosen topic is evidenced by the existence of contradictory legal practice on the issue in question, numerous cases of non-uniform application of the law, as well as the need for a comprehensive interpretation of the legislation, which is the main goal of the article. The work attempts to comprehensively interpret the legislation, paying special attention to problematic issues and ones that have caused disagreement among specialists. In particular, the following questions are raised: What are the criteria for considering whether an object or means is prepared or adapted in advance to cause bodily harm? For what purpose should the object or means be adapted or prepared for the presence of an aggravating circumstance? By whom should the object or means be adapted or prepared? Can the use of an object taken from the scene of the crime cause an aggravating circumstance? In addition, the results of the practice of applying the aforementioned aggravating circumstance were discussed.

PDF

ANAHIT ANTONYAN

Judge of the general jurisdiction court of first instance of

Kotayk Region of the RA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-88

Annotation.

This scientific article discusses the essence and subjective prerequisites of the reversal of the execution of a judicial act. In the article, the author develops the conceptual approach according to which the proceeding for the reversal of the execution of a judicial act should be classified as a differentiated form of civil proceeding and be regulated exclusively by the Code of Civil Procedure. Currently, the Code of Civil Procedure does not regulate the reversal of a judicial act’s execution. The provisions related to the reversal of the execution of a judicial act are included in the law “On Compulsory Enforcement of Judicial Acts.” The author found that, like any type of proceeding, the proceedings for the reversal of the execution of a judicial act, as a differentiated form of civil proceedings, have formal, subjective, and objective prerequisites for initiation. Subjective prerequisites are the scope of subjects that are authorized to initiate such proceedings. The author has analyzed the authority of the court to reverse the execution of a judicial act on its own initiative. In the light of the current legislative regulations and judicial practice, the article also analyzed the scope of possible persons who have the right to apply to the court to reverse the execution of a judicial act.

PDF