0 8000 12 11

On April 2, 2014, the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor reported to the RA Special Investigation Service that Robert Muradyan and Andranik Mkhitaryan, inmates of the RA MoJ Artik penitentiary, suffered inhuman treatment by police officers. On April 10, 2014, citizens Robert Muradyan and Andranik Mkhitaryan also reported to the SIS that back in October 2013 they had been apprehended to the Gyumri City Police Mush Division, Shirak Regional (Marz) Police Department, on suspicion of assault and suffered violence by the police officers coercing self-confession evidence. On April 14, 2014, the RA SIS initiated a criminal case and conducted a preliminary investigation. After improper preliminary investigation, the SIS discontinued the criminal proceedings on October 3, 2014 and decided not to initiate criminal prosecution on the pretext of the absence of any elements of offence in the actions of the police officers. The HCA Vanadzor filed a complaint against the decree above with the RA Prosecutor General requesting to annul the SIS decree on discontinuing the criminal proceedings and not initiating criminal prosecution. However, the complaint was rejected by decree of October 3, 2014. The HCA Vanadzor believes that the SIS has violated some norms of the RA Constitution and the RA Criminal Procedure Code. At the preliminary investigation stage of this case, the SIS had at its disposal both the testimonies of the victim citizens and of the police officers and once again (remember the preliminary investigation of Ani Boshyan’s case) did not consider the testimonies of the victims credible and for some unknown reasons, considered the those of the police officers to be well-grounded. It should also be noted that the SIS failed its job and did not question at the preliminary investigation stage Jivan Sahakyan who accompanied Robert Muradyan and Andranik Mkhitaryan tо the building of the Shirak Region (marz) Court of General Jurisdiction where they met a police officer. In this case, Jivan Sahakyan might give some significant testimony, since according to Robert Muradyan, they had presented themselves before the Police of their own free will, whereas according to the police officers, they accidentally discovered and apprehended Robert Muradyan.  In this case, too, given equal conditions, the SIS for unknown reasons made a decision based on the testimonies of the police officers. At the preliminary investigation stage, the SIS failed to seize and transcribe the records of the surveillance cameras installed in the relevant departments of the police that might serve as a ground for some of the points in the testimonies of the victims.

The HCA Vanadzor disagreed with the SIS decree and on February 6, 2015 filed a complaint with the Court of General Jurisdiction of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan requesting to annul the SIS decree of October 3, 2014 on discontinuing the criminal proceedings and not initiating criminal prosecution and to submit the case to preliminary investigation. This appeal by the Organization was also dismissed on March 19, 2015. Later, on March 30, 2015, the HCA Vanadzor appealed this ruling of the Court of General Jurisdiction with the RA Court of Appeal. The latter adopted the appeal, and the court hearing was fixed on April 22, 2015. Then, on April 22, 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled to dismiss the appeal of the HCA Vanadzor by ignoring the blatant illegalities mentioned in the appeal. In the last paragraph on page 13 of the judgment above, the Court referred to the Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece European Court case and cited the idea below: “In case any person makes a credible allegation that they had been subjected to torture by the police or any other similar state officials in breach of Article 3, the provision in question shall, along with the general state obligations under Article 1 of the Convention on “securing to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention”, entail effective investigation. Yet, the fact that the statements in the reports and testimonies of the victims meet the credibility criterion is in doubt”. Analyzing the reference made by the Court, one can conclude that by dismissing the application by its judgment, the Court still considers that no effective investigation has been carried out. Yet, it observed no violation on the grounds that the statements by the victims of torture were incredible. Moreover, the thorough study of the Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece (Application No. 15250/02) judgment shows that the relevant judgment by the European Court has no such interpretation of “credible statement” at all.