0 8000 12 11

On May 14, 2015, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by Judge L. Avetisyan, resumed the trial of the criminal case on the death of a 2-year and 3-month-old Lia Misakyan against Lilit Vardanyan and Zarine Ayvazyan. Note that the previous court hearing was adjourned by the motion of Yerem Sargsyan, advocate of defendant Zarine Ayvazyan, who needed some tome to familiarize himself with the court rulings to prepare his defense arguments. Artur Sakunts, representative of the victim’s successor, did not attend the court hearing of May 14, 2015 due to being abroad. The successor to the victim and the other parties to the trial did not object to holding the hearing in his absence. Upon considering the issue of holding the hearing without A. Sakunts, the Court ruled to hold it in his absence. Before providing his arguments, Yerem Sargsyan, defendant Zarine Ayvazyan’s advocate, filed a motion to resume the trial in order to attach some documents to the case and to examine them. In particular, he motioned to attach to the case the copies of the medical records of 7 patients with similar diagnosis provided by the Arabkir Medical Center in response to his letter as well as a court of law protocol of the testimony by the same histologist of the same forensic examination center within another criminal case on а medical error examined at the Court of General Jurisdiction of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, wherein it was stated that pus and fibrin might appear within 0-12 hours. Y. Sargsyan also submitted an expert opinion of the commission presided by Gagik Harutyunyan, expert at the expert center above, and the further re-examination denying the shortcomings pointed out by the previous one. Prosecutor Davit Karapetyan objected to the motion and said that despite the long-lasting investigation into the death of Lia Misakyan, the advocate still sought to build his arguments on the findings obtained within another criminal case. He also mentioned that there was no judicial or legal procedure in use to examine the materials of a criminal case still under investigation within another criminal case. Victim’s successor Georgi Minasyan also objected to the motion and found that it should be dismissed. His representative Tatevik Siradeghyan added that the materials submitted to the court by advocate Y. Sargsyan concerned another criminal case and were obtained during the investigation of another criminal case, and as for the medical records above, they also related to other patients and since the progress and manifestations of the same disease might differ from patient to patient, she asked the court to reject the motion. Givi Hovhannisyan, advocate of the other defendant Lilit Vardanyan did not object to the motion above and even found that the documents submitted to the court related to the same fact of case. As for the medical records, he added that the agency responsible for the proceedings had itself submitted other medical records to the experts for comparison. Upon examining the motion and the positions of the parties to the trial, the court found that the motion should be dismissed. As for attaching to the case the medical records of other patients at the Arabkir Medical Center, the Court stated that people are different and so are diseases and they cannot progress in the same way. As for the materials of another criminal case, the Court mentioned that each case was investigated separately and the evidence obtained in a criminal case might not be used as such in another criminal case. Upon the decision by the Court, Y. Sargsyan stated that he was sure that the Court would make such a decision since it had always made it clear that it considered the expert beyond any doubt. Then Zarine Ayvazyan’s advocate Y. Sargsyan provided his defense arguments. He said that both the law enforcement agencies, and the Court failed to conduct an impartial investigation into the case of Lia Misakyan’s death, and they tried to bypass the law and jurisprudence and hold a doctor liable at least within 1 case. The advocate considered the only reason underlying such behavior to be the availability of the amnesty act and noted that this was the only case when the amnesty act was used to the detriment of the defendant. According to Y. Sargsyan, the entire trial came to show that the outcome of the case was determined by 2 persons, namely forensic expert S. Sevoyan and G. Harutyunyan, Chairman of the forensic expert re-examination committee. The advocate mentioned that at first he decided to follow the example of G. Hovhannisyan and give up his right to speech, but later he made up his mind to speak about the expert opinions of the forensic examination and re-examination of the corpse. As for the forensic re-examination, Y. Sargyan said that it had no mention of the examination methods, the rationale for their use and the references used for the expert opinion. Y. Sargsyan also said that the expert opinion above did not contain a single sentence about any oversight by Zarine Ayvazyan. In his regard, he suggested that the expert committee members avoided highlighting the causal link as they had been notified of the criminal liability for issuing explicitly false expert opinions. Whereas the Committee Chairman G. Harutyunyan, when questioned as an expert in a court of law, insisted on the causal link since he would not be subject to criminal liability for that.  Y. Sargsyan noted that the expert opinion recorded only the violations by Lilit Vardanyan. He added that he realized quite well that the Court would issue a guilty verdict and reiterated that the questioning of an expert could never replace the expert opinion. He pointed out a series of controversies found in the forensic expert re-examination opinion and the testimonies by the Committee Chairman G. Harutyunyan who was questioned on the issues related to the opinion above. The advocate also touched upon the data on the breathing provided by Harutyunyan in his testimony and said that while the expert opinion denied the fact of tachypnea, G. Harutyunyan insisted in the court of law that the child suffered tachypnea. The advocate did not exclude that Lia Misakyan might have died of pneumonia and still noted that at admission, the child showed no such symptoms. Furthermore, the advocate noted that G. Harutyunyan had mentioned in his testimony that on January 2, the child’s condition had worsened dramatically and then said that the child’s disease had not progressed rapidly. Y. Sargsyan also mentioned in his speech that the Court should uphold the Defense motions based on the grounds above and declare the expert opinion in question as inadmissible evidence, whereas the Court rejected the motion by a protocol ruling. As for the forensic opinion of the corpse, the advocate mentioned that it also contained violations and he had detailed on the relevant grounds at the previous court hearing. In his speech, Y. Sargsyan also highlighted the very action as such. He mentioned that while the agency responsible for the preliminary investigation brought charges against Lilit Vardanyan under the forensic re-examination expert opinion, his client Zarine Ayvazyan was charged under the initial commission forensic examination expert opinion, which did not found any evidence of the causal link with the death. Also, he noted that neither the preliminary investigation, nor the trial revealed when the blood test records appeared in the patient’s medical records. At the same time he said that his client served 102 patients and did not show explicit inactivity but rather waited for the hospital attendant to bring her the test results. The advocate also talked about Prosecutor D. Karapetyan’s motion to impose some extra punishment and said that the latter had provided no relevant grounds in his speech, and it was noteworthy that after the charges Zarine Ayvazyan’s professional activity was not suspended and she continued working at the medical center in question. The advocate also highlighted the positive characteristics of the defendant and the letters of thanks by the parents of other patients. The advocate summed up his speech by requesting the Court to declare Zarine Ayvazyan not guilty. After the speech of Y. Sargsyan, the parties to the trial made some remarks. Prosecutor D. Karapetyan said that for a year, the Court had examined the facts of Lia Misakyan’s death rather than the omissions of G. Harutyunyan and others. The prosecutor asked a series of questions and accordingly noted that in his speech, the advocate should have considered the question of whether Zarine Ayvazyan gave a correct diagnosis and learnt about receiving the blood test records and some other questions. The victim’s successor G. Misakyan remarked that Zarine Ayvazyan had taken no action, “So why was not the child discharged from the hospital if she was in a good state?” T. Siradeghyan, representative of the victim’s successor, remarked that the advocate failed to mention the anamnestic data of Lia Misakyan provided by her mother to Lilit Vardanyan, doctor who admitted the child to the hospital. T. Siradeghyan briefly outlined the anamnestic data and mentioned that no actions were taken at the hospital, except for giving the child some medicines to reduce the temperature. The urine and feces tests prescribed by the doctor had not been performed, and the blood test records had not been received in time, whereas they had been ready back at about 11 am on January 1. Also, T. Siradeghyan noted that according to the aggrieved party, the sole reason why the date of attaching the blood test to the patient’s medical records was not identified within the case was that the hospital staff involved in the case were not interested in it. However, T. Siradeghyan mentioned that the state of the child’s health deteriorated at hospital, which is shown by the decreased white blood cell count. It was also mentioned that according to the experts questioned within the case, the prescribed treatment was contra-indicated, and in that case, antibacterial treatment should have been assigned. T. Siradeghyan also mentioned that in her speech she had requested the court to find the defendants guilty of the charges brought against them and insisted on her position. Lilit Vardanyan’s advocate G. Hovhannisyan did not exercise his right to make a remark, and Zarine Ayvazyan’s advocate Y. Sargsyan mentioned in his remark that the prosecution party was unable to distinguish omissions from the causal link and once again insisted that there was no causal link between his client’s act and the death of Lia Misakyan. Due to the end of the working day and given the workload of the Court, the court hearing was adjourned till June 12, 2015, 10:30 am.