0 8000 12 11

The RA Cassation Court has recorded that the investigation conducted in relation to his death has been effective.

Over three years Susanna Antonyan from Vanadzor has been trying to find out the reason for his son’s infection.

Her son Arman Antonyan died 3 years ago from acute liver failure triggered by fulminant nature of viral Hepatitis B and liver necrosis. As his mother mentions prior to that her 29-year-old son was under the surveillance of sex therapist Artur Baghdasaryan from the city rehabilitation center for sexual pathology and later underwent a treatment course there. “Right after one month my child’s health state aggravated, he couldn’t move, his fever ran 40 °C and his skin   turned yellow. We called Ambulance a couple of times, they came twice and told there was no need to worry since it was merely a state of influenza. The next day on March 31, my child’s body swelled and his fever remained high, so we took him to hospital”, shares the mother regarding the state of his son’s last days who died at the age of 29.  She continues claiming that her son got infected during treatment, prior to that her son had been completely healthy. Without finding out from where her son acquired the aforementioned disease and without specifying how he contracted the infection, the preliminary investigation body took a decision to stop the proceedings of the criminal case, which according to her, wasn’t in line with the law.   The criminal case filed in relation to improper implementation of processional duties by implementers of medical support and care has been closed at the Investigation Division of Yerevan city Investigation Department of the RA Police General Department of Investigations due to absence of criminality. And in spite of the fact that both the Court of First Instance and the RA Court of Criminal Appeals declined the claims of the mother trying to reveal the cause for her son’s infection by leaving the investigator’s decision unaltered, the decisions to close the proceedings of the criminal case and not to conduct criminal prosecution were quashed   by the ruling of the RA Cassation Court and the case was sent to the Court of Common Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan city  for new investigation.

“The Court’s practice is in its development stage, all those grounds submitted by us both at the Court of First Instance and the RA Court of Appeals underlay the ruling of the RA Cassation Court. It is of crucial importance that the Cassation Court nonetheless examined the justifications presented by us and found them to be fully justified from legal standpoint. Hence, we have the ruling of the Cassation Court, whereby, legal assessment is given as to how the preliminary investigation body should conduct the investigation and what procedural issues it should ensure”, human rights defender Artur Sakunts, representative of the victim’s  legal successor at court told in a talk with “Aravot”.

“The preliminary investigation body should have conducted such an investigation not to leave unanswered questions for the victim’s family and relatives. In this particular case, we have raised 20 crucially important unanswered questions and not having their answers there are quite substantial doubts and great many grounds confirming that inadequate intervention was carried out by the sex therapist”, lawyer Arayik Zalyan from Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor NGO noted in an interview with us, specifying that Arman’s mother Susanna Antonyan was recognized as victim’s legal successor with the scope of the case which was prolonged for years. Besides, the filing of the criminal case was protracted for months and the investigation was accessible to the victim’s family.

“The preliminary investigations over the right to life in the RA are conducted with numerous drawbacks and violations; we have a number of cases within the frames of which the preliminary investigation is made inaccessible to victim’s family. This means the preliminary investigation is being conducted, but the family of the victim, entitled to directly partake by presenting its recommendations, applications, complaints to the preliminary investigation body, is deprived of such a right. Over Arman Antonyan’s case, in particular, the Cassation Court addressed the issues raised by us recording that this particular investigation wasn’t made accessible to the victim’s family”, notes Arayik Zalyan.