Court Hearing on Taron Siradeghyan’s Case Held
19:27, June 16, 2015 | News, Other news
On June 12, 2015, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge H. Ayvazyan, resumed court examination of administrative case on the claim by the RA Police against Taron Siradeghyan on administrative liability under Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences, and on the counter-claim of Taron Siradeghyan against the RA Police on considering the police actions unlawful. Note that the previous hearing on this case was adjourned to ensure video records watching. The court hearing of June 12, 2015 was attended by Aida Demirkhanyan, representative of plaintiff RA Police, defendant and counter-appellant Taron Siradeghyan and his representative Tatevik Siradeghyan.
Before watching the video, the defendant’s representative T. Siradeghyan attempted to find out whether the applicant party had submitted to the court the Order establishing the registration procedure of persons apprehended to the police. A. Demirkhanyan submitted to the court the Order which became effective on June 21, 2014; however, the previous order still remained effective for 2 months. The Order above modified the registry-keeping procedure, particularly the updated Order reads that the personal data shall be filled in the registry in the presence of the person in question. Also, physical injuries, if any, shall be registered and afterwards the person shall sign in the register. Defendant’s representative T. Siradeghyan noted that the paper submitted to the court was a copy of the relevant page of the registry book which made it impossible to understand whether it was identical with the original document, and furthermore, the records had not been made in the presence of the defendant, and therefore T. Siradeghyan made a motion to the Court to require that the plaintiff party submitted the original registry book, noting that only after comparing the copy with the original it would be possible to attach the document to the Case as written evidence.
The plaintiff’s representative objected to the motion and mentioned that the copy submitted to court bore the seal of the relevant Police department which certified that the data in it were identical with those in the original copy. The presiding judge suggested that the defendant party postponed the motion and the court considered the motion upon adjusting the time of arrest at the stage of court examination, if it was necessary to verify the records in the registry. Upon agreement of the defendant party, the parties to the trial watched the video records delivered by the mass media.
The plaintiff’s representative A. Demirkhanyan suggested watching the segment of the video where one of the police officers requested the assembly participants sitting in Saryan Street to open the road. In response to the question of the judge whether the defendant could be seen in the video, A. Demirkhanyan noted that while she was unable to see the defendant, she was sure that T. Siradeghyan had been there and had heard the order of the police officer.
However, while watching the segment above, it was unclear who said “Open the road!”, and the plaintiff’s representative once again expressed her conviction that it was a police officer who said so. At the proposal of the defendant and counter-appellant party, the persons present at the hearing also watched the initial segments of the assembly where one of its organizers introduced its objectives and showed that it was a peaceful assembly as well as the segment clearly showing how police officers formed a cordon to limit the right to freedom of assembly of the participants.
Then the parties to the trial watched the segments that showed the police officers using force against the counter-appellant at the assembly as well as using force against the other participants sitting on Saryan Street and arresting them. After watching the video, the parties expressed their positions, and then T. Siradeghyan’s filed a motion to involve 4 persons as witnesses in the case and question them in course of the court examination.
According to the counter-appellant’s representative, the first person might have testified that during the assembly T. Siradeghyan had not broken through the police cordon, and the other witnesses might have provided information about the real time of the arrest. The plaintiff’s representative stated that bypassing the police cordon also meant breaking through it and that she did not contest the fact that the defendant had bypassed the police cordon. Based on this, the counter-appellant’s representative reversed her motion to summon the witness in question to the Court, but insisted on the other points in the motion.
As the working day was over, the Court ruled to adjourn the hearing and stated that in case the Court decided to rule on the motion above before the court hearing, the witnesses would be duly notified of the date and time of the relevant hearing. The data on the date and time of the next hearing on this case will be published upon receipt of the writ.