0 8000 12 11

According to human rights advocate Artur Sakunts, the charges against the leader of the ‘Tseghakron’ Party Shant Harutyunyan were changed to save the investigating authority from shame. It should be noted that the day before, the investigating authority decided to change the charges against Shant Harutyunyan detained due to the events of the Mashtots Avenue on November 5, 2013. The charges on brutal violence against a police officer were replaced by charges on hooliganism.

“Neither Shant Harutyunyan, nor his friends committed any criminal offense either under Article 316, or under Article 258. Thus, no action by Shant and his friends can serve basis for either bringing charges against them by law enforcement agencies, or instituting criminal proceedings. While the replacement of one Article by another is merely a doll play, it shows that the investigating authority is at a loss. The factual background available on November 5, at the time Shant and his friends were arrested for an allegedly committed offence, have remained the same. During those 5 months no new fact or evidence was discovered. From this perspective, replacing one article with another is quite groundless and illogical”, said Mr. Sakunts.

According to him, the investigating authority realized that it was unable to substantiate the charge under Article 316 and therefore, made a reference to Article 258(4). In particular, he said “They applied Article 258(4) not only to Shant, but also to his friends, namely: Hayk Harutyunyan, Vardan Vardanyan and Aleq Poghosyan. They saw that they were unable to substantiate the fact of violence against a police officer, since in this case the police officer in question should be involved in the case as the aggrieved party, and this would entail answering questions and testifying; as a result, all their grounds would burst like a balloon. To avoid the shameful situation, they changed the charge by a new one under an article where the police officers are no longer the aggrieved party but rather can be involved as witnesses. Thus, the issue passes to the theoretical level”.

Mr. Sakunts believes that the prosecution will not be able to substantiate its charges against Shant Hartutyunyan under Article 258 since: “This Article refers to using weapons or any objects considered ammunition. No weapons were found. As for ammunition, a question rises: how can it be determined as such? If they attempt to qualify wooden bars as ammunition, the Deputy Police Chief of Yerevan, Valery Osipyan used to say that they could hardly be considered as a weapon as they were freely available in shops. The pyrotechnics cannot be considered as a weapon either, since it is used for celebrations and is not prohibited. On the other hand, if the prosecution brings its charges on the grounds of using weapons, it would make logic to bring charges on illegal use of weapons; however, no such charge was brought. Hence replacing the charges should not be considered in light of either mitigation or intensification, but rather as a step to replace the article underlying the charges in an attempt to avoid shame and hide their ignorance by turning to dispute that helps them feel more at ease.”

P.S. It became known later that the extent of charges against the 6 accused under this case had been changed.

As the Public Relations and Press Department of the RA Police informed the correspondent of the ‘Pastinfo’, the charge under the RA Criminal Code Article 316(1) on committing violence against a representative of authorities not affecting his/her life or health brought against the accused Sevak Mnatsakanyan and Tigran Petrosyan was replaced by the charge under the RA Criminal Code Article 258(3)(1-2) on hooliganism by a group of persons or an organized group accompanied by resistance of law or to a person responsible for preserving the public order or preventing breach of the public order. The accused Armen Hovhannisyan was also charged under this Article instead of his previous charge under RA Criminal Code Article 316(2) on committing violence against a representative of authorities not affecting his/her life or health.

The charge under the RA Criminal Code Article 316(2) of the accused Hayk Harutyunyan was replaced by the charge under the RA Criminal Code Article 258(4) on hooliganism with use of weapons or any objects considered ammunition and under Article 268(1) on illegal drug and substances traffic without the purpose of their sale. Also, the charge against the accused Vardan Vardanyan under the RA Criminal Code Article 316(2) was replaced by the charge under the RA Criminal Code Article 258(4). After the charge was changed, Misak Arakelyan was set free.

Sources: Aravot.am, www.pressident.am, lragir.am, newsbook.am