Against the backdrop of a new initiative by Armenia’s Ombudsman Anaït Manasyan, a public debate has flared up between her and Ruben Vardazaryan, the former head of the Supreme Judicial Council. The Ombudsman has appealed to the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of a government decree that imposes an absolute ban on appointing individuals with complete bilateral deafness, deaf-muteness, or bilateral blindness as judges.
Clash of Views: Rights of People with Disabilities vs. Professionalism in the Judiciary
Ruben Vardazaryan, the former head of the Supreme Judicial Council, responded to the Ombudsman’s initiative with considerable sarcasm. According to him, given today’s realities, where judges, as he claims, “are ready to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to real facts at the behest of the authorities,” Manasyan’s initiative seems almost “justified.”
“Such restrictions apply not only to judges but also to investigators and prosecutors. Given the realities, these restrictions should be lifted for them as well. Why not allow blind people to work as snipers in the Ministry of Defense? And why stop there—let’s allow people with schizophrenia or Down syndrome to serve as judges. In our country, I think even that will become acceptable… Everything I’ve said is, of course, sarcasm. I consider this initiative disgraceful,” Vardazaryan told journalists.
In response to the criticism, Manasyan emphasized that the goal of her appeal is to protect the rights of people with disabilities who, despite their professional and personal qualifications, are barred from judicial positions due to current legislation. According to her, such an approach contradicts both the principles of non-discrimination and international standards.
“[Vardazaryan’s] reaction is unacceptable, especially considering that he represents the professional community. He not only called the possibility of appointing people with disabilities as judges a ‘disgrace’ but also targeted several categories of citizens with special needs or medical conditions,” she noted.
According to the Ombudsman, such statements illustrate how deeply discriminatory approaches are entrenched in Armenia’s legal system and explain why appeals to the Constitutional Court are necessary. Manasyan recalled that in most democratic countries, restrictions based on disability are considered violations of human rights. “Appointments to judicial positions should be based solely on professional qualifications, education level, and adherence to ethical standards. Medical diagnoses alone should not be grounds for automatic exclusion,” she stressed.
Pros and Cons of the Reform
From an ethical and legal perspective, the question of whether individuals with complete blindness or deafness can serve as judges requires a nuanced approach. International standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, strongly oppose discrimination and demand equal opportunities for people with disabilities, including access to public positions. Thus, automatically excluding such individuals from the judiciary would be unlawful if the necessary technical and organizational conditions can be provided to enable them to perform their duties effectively.
However, the judicial profession involves handling large volumes of information, conducting oral and written analysis, managing court proceedings, and directly interacting with participants. If a disability significantly limits the ability to perform these tasks, even with assistive technologies, such appointments could become problematic and undermine the essence of the profession.
Thus, appointing such individuals is possible and acceptable provided there is adequate infrastructure and support—technical, methodological, and organizational. However, given the specifics of Armenia’s judicial system and the traditionally slow pace of reform implementation, lifting existing bans could lead to a decline in the quality of justice.
Inclusivity Without Risk
Undoubtedly, lifting the ban on appointing individuals with complete blindness or deafness as judges is necessary from the perspective of human rights and non-discrimination. However, rushing into actual appointments is inadvisable. Such a step requires a balanced approach and the establishment of comprehensive support systems to ensure the quality and efficiency of justice.
First and foremost, it is essential to develop technical infrastructure—modern assistive technologies that enable such judges to work effectively with information and interact with process participants. Equally important is an adapted system of training and professional development that accounts for the specifics of judges with disabilities.
Additionally, thorough testing and evaluation of professional skills using assistive tools are necessary to ensure that each candidate can perform their duties adequately. Pilot projects with temporary appointments could help identify challenges and address them promptly.
Clear standards and requirements for ethics and professionalism, mandatory for all judges regardless of physical abilities, should also be established. A monitoring system and feedback from both colleagues and the public are crucial to ensure trust in the judicial system.
However, all of this requires time and, most importantly, funding.