The Court Decreed on the Case of Hrachya Gevorgyan
11:52, October 29, 2014 | News, Own news | Right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Right to Fair Trial, Right to liberty and security | Detention Facilities
On October 28, 2014, the General Jurisdiction Court of Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by judge V. Grigoryan, announced its decree on the complaint by Hrachya Gevorgyan, inmate of the Hospital for Convicts penitentiary, RA Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Upon considering the complaint on annulling the preliminary investigation authority’s decree to dismiss the instigation of criminal proceedings, the Court decreed to reject the complaint due to its groundlessness.
In its decree, the Court found that neither Hrachya Gevorgyan, nor his representative put forward any reasonable argument or evidence on threats by Artur Gevorgyan, former Head of the Criminal Investigation Department of Mashtots Division, Yerevan Department of the RA Police, against the aggrieved party, i.e. availability of evidence of his guilt. Thus, the Court ended up finding that the decree issued by A. Matevosyan, Investigator at Erebuni Investigatory Department, Criminal Investigation Department of the RA Police on dismissing instigation of criminal proceedings, dated June 24, 2014 was lawful in compliance with Article 185, RA Criminal Procedure Code and gave no grounds for its annulment.
Note that upon moving to the Hospital for Convicts penitentiary of the RA MoJ from the Numbarashen penitentiary of the RA MoJ, Hrachya Gevorgyan told the officers of the RA Ombudsman’s Office, who visited him, that Arthur Gevorgyan, former Head of the Criminal Investigation Department of Mashtots Division, Yerevan Department of the RA Police, threatened him for three months and threatened him (Hrachya Gevorgyan), during the short visit at the RA MoJ Numbarashen penitentiary of August 14, 2013, to settle a score with him by the hands of a staff at the penitentiary unless he took back all his complaints against him and provided self-confession evidence during the criminal proceedings against him. The report by the Ombudsman’s Office resulted in relevant materials that, nevertheless, ended in a decree on dismissing the criminal case due to absence of corpus delicti.