0 8000 12 11

On May 20, 2015, the RA Criminal Court of Appeal, presided by judge G. Avetisyan, examined the appeal by the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative district Prosecutor’s Office of the RA Yerevan city Prosecutor’s Office against the ruling on the case of baby Elen Parsadanyan’ death issued by the general jurisdiction court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA dated March 26, 2015. Note that HCA Vanadzor lawyers Ani Chatinyan and Arayik Zalyan, representatives of the successor to the victim, Lusine Parsadanyan, appealed the ruling to discontinue the criminal proceedings to the general jurisdiction court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, which, presided by judge A. Khachatryan, upheld the appeal. The court examination of May 20, 2015 was attended by applicant Aram Mnatsakanyan, Prosecutor at the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative district Prosecutor’s Office of the RA Yerevan city Prosecutor’s Office, and L. Parsadanyan’s representative A. Chatinyan. The investigator responsible for the proceedings G. Genjoyan did not attend the court hearing due to urgent investigative actions. After making sure that there were no challenge or self-recusal motions, the Court presented the contents of the ruling by the general jurisdiction court and of the appeal. Then complainant A. Mnatsakanyan introduced the grounds and substance of the appeal. Within the appeal, the complainants also touched upon the lawfulness of the legal act of the general jurisdiction court; in particular, he noted that the Court had failed to involve the prosecutor’s office in the examination of the appeal and thereby arbitrarily deprived the prosecutor responsible for the oversight and procedural control and then for the verification and approval of the legitimacy of the investigator’s decree of making any objections or expressing any positions. Prosecutor A. Mnatsakanyan also considered some other facts of the case in the judicial act. He noted that the victim’s successor L. Parsadanyan had mentioned in the expert opinion familiarization protocol that he disagreed with the opinion above and would voice her questions after a complete study of the materials. The complainant stated that the victim’s successor did not petition for another expert examination, while the Court found in its ruling that in this case L. Parsadanyan was deprived of her right to submit a motion for another expert examination, since the ruling to discontinue the criminal proceedings was made on the very day the aggrieved party was familiarized with the expert opinion. A. Mnatsakanyan found that the investigator did not take any action to deprive the victim’s successor of any of her rights enshrined in law and therefore requested the Court to reverse the judicial act appealed. Upon presentation of the grounds of the appeal, the Court asked A. Mnatsakanyan a number of questions. Presiding judge G. Avetisyan asked whether the failure to familiarize the aggrieved party with the decree to appoint an examination as well as to give the successor to the victim an opportunity to express her opinion after the expert opinion and delivering the decree to discontinue the criminal proceedings only some months later constituted violations of the rights of the aggrieved party. In response to the questions above, the supervising prosecutor A. Mnatsakanyan admitted that the investigator had committed some mistakes which, however, could not have any affect on the outcome of the case since the medical opinion had not established the fact of medical error. A. Chatinyan, representative of the successor to victim, presented her objections against the appeal. She stated that the court of general jurisdiction had challenged the legitimacy of the decree to discontinue the criminal proceedings, and the preliminary criminal investigation had been conducted by G. Genjoyan, investigator at the RA Police Arabkir Investigation Department, and therefore the investigator above is deemed to be the agency responsible for the proceedings, whom the Court had notified of the date and time of the examination of the appeal. A. Chatinyan also stated that by decreeing to discontinue the criminal proceedings on the same day after familiarizing the aggrieved party with the expert opinion, the agency responsible for the proceedings deprived the aggrieved party of the right to submit a motion for another expert examination if it disagreed with the opinion. And such a motion submitted later by the aggrieved party was not considered since the relevant decree had already been made. Thus, A. Chatinyan asked the Court to dismiss the appeal. Presiding judge G. Avetisyan noted that due to the heavy workload of the Court due to another case, he had to adjourn the examination of the appeal. He also added that the investigator would also have to attend the following hearing to provide explanation for his actions. Thus the examination of the appeal was adjourned and scheduled for June 3, 2015, at 2 pm.