0 8000 12 11

On November 16, 2015, the RA Criminal Court of Appeal, presided by judge M. Arghamanyan, resumed examination of the appeal by Hovhannes Katrjyan and his representative, HCA Vanadzor Yerevan Office lawyer Tatevik Siradeghyan against the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, dated September 29, 2015. The hearing was attended by applicant H. Katrjyan, his representative T. Siradeghyan and prosecutor G. Margaryan. H. Katrjyan’s representative T. Siradeghyan resumed presenting the grounds and reasons. She presented grounds for the presence of corpus delicti in surgeon Smbat Jamalyan’s action noting that during the surgeries of both 2004 and 2008, S. Jamalyan knew in advance that in the former case, an already once used pacemaker device was installed and in the latter case, the factory warranty service period of the device to be installed was shorter as compared to that prescribed in the contract. Also, T. Siradeghyan also noted that in the absence of the person in question, the investigating agency might not terminate the criminal proceedings against him due to limitation period. Meanwhile, S. Jamalyan has been on the wanted list since the charges were brought against him. The appeal also provided grounds to the effect that the preliminary investigation did not aim to restore the violated rights of victim Hovhannes Katrjyan. Thus, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to reverse the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, RA of September 29, 2015, pass a new judicial act and send the case to preliminary investigation. Appellant Hovhannes Katrjyan also provided grounds that S. Jamalyan committed illegal actions noting that before the surgeries above he had not provided the technical certificates of the devices to be installed and the findings of the examinations following the installation with a clear specification of the warranty service period. Prosecutor G. Margaryan, who had decreed to terminate criminal proceedings, objected to the appeal. He stated that the criminal proceedings failed to substantiate that S. Jamalyan had originally aimed to deceive the patient. Also, he noted that the medical center had signed a paid service contract which did not envisage any sale of any device. G. Margaryan also stated that S. Jamalyan’s attorney had also appealed the decree on termination of the criminal proceedings; however, in the court he withdrew his appeal. G. Margaryan considered the ruling of the lower court legal and well-founded and requested the Court to dismiss the appeal. In response to G. Margaryan’s objections, T. Siradeghyan stated that the preliminary investigation took no measures to find out the initial purpose of the deception. She also added that the cost of services to be provided under the contract with the medical center depended on the cost of the device to be installed as established by the pricelist. Also, T. Siradeghyan found that the fact that S. Jamalyan’s attorney decided to appeal the ruling might not be considered among the grounds since S. Jamalyan’s agreement on termination of the criminal proceedings should have been sought before making such a ruling. The Court considered the examination of the appeal to be completed and left to the retiring room to make a ruling. Shortly after, the Court announced its ruling which dismissed Hovhannes Katrjyan’s and his representative’s appeal and upheld the judicial act of the lower court.

See also: hcav.am