0 8000 12 11

On May 16, 2016, the RA Court of Criminal Appeals, presided by judge K. Ghazaryan, examined the appeal submitted by Tatevik Siradeghyan, representative of aggrieved party Karen Kyupelyan and lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, against the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan city, RA.

Note that having examined the complaint of aggrieved party K. Kyupelyan’s representative T. Siradegyan on annulling RA Special Investigation Service Senior Investigator for High-Profile Cases A. Ohanyan’s decree of October 19, 2015 on not initiating criminal prosecution, on March 23, 2016 the General Jurisdiction Court, presided by M. Melkonyan, dismissed it.

The examination of the appeal was attended by appellant K. Kyupelyan, his representative T. Siradeghyan, investigator A. Ohanyan, responsible for the investigation, and supervising prosecutor A. Shahbazyan. By a notification from the Court, the court hearing was also attended by E. Nanyan, RA NSS officer, and former officer H. Mazmanyan. The Court clarified to the latter that they had been notified of the date and time of the hearing since the appeal under examination related to their rights and legal interests.

Upon finding out that there were no challenge motions, the Court passed to the presentation of the procedural background of the case and then to the examination of the appeal.

T. Siradeghyan, representative of the victim, presented the grounds of the appeal mentioning that the decision of the agency responsible for the investigation and the court ruling were groundless and did not follow from the data obtained during the preliminary investigation of the criminal case. By its decision on not initiating criminal prosecution made within the preliminary investigation, the agency responsible for the investigation found that the data provided by the aggrieved party might have been biased in nature, without substantiating such allegations in any way. Though the reasons for recognizing K. Kyupelyan an aggrieved party had been known to the agency responsible for the investigation from the very moment of initiating the criminal proceedings, he was recognized as such only 2.5 months after the criminal proceedings above were initiated.

Also, the representative of the aggrieved party noted that when providing testimony both as a witness and as a victim, K. Kyupelyan was warned of the responsibility for giving false testimony.

T. Siradeghyan also expressed an opinion, that in fact, RA SIS Senior Investigator for High Profile Cases A. Ohanyan would bring charges against E. Nanyan and T. Aghajanyan if the latter provided self-confession evidence; this conclusion follows from the progress in the preliminary investigation since charges were brought against H. Mazmanyan only based on his and aggrieved party K. Kyupelyan’s testimonies; that is to say, in one case the latter’s testimonies were considered sufficient to bring charges against H. Mazmanyan while in the other case they were not considered credible to substantiate the fact that H. Mazmanyan was issued an order or an instruction by E. Nanyan and T. Aghajanyan.

T. Siradeghyan as well considered groundless the conclusion by the investigating agency about the exhausted possibilities for obtaining other evidence on the case and stated that according to the testimonies of the persons questioned under the case,  other persons as well as officers of relevant department possessed information about the incident. T. Siradeghyan also mentioned that the agency responsible for the investigation had not addressed the issue of whether E. Nanyan and T. Aghajanyan fulfilled the official duties imposed on them adequately; particularly, no measures were taken to find out whether within their powers the latter were under obligation to supervise the actions taken towards the person apprehended to the RA NSS.

Hence, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to reverse the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan city, RA, dated March 23, 2016 and make a new judicial act.

Aggrieved party K. Kyupelyan joined the appeal mentioning that the RA Special Investigation Service had concealed the crime.

Supervising prosecutor A. Shahbazyan and A. Ohanyan, responsible for the proceedings, expressed their objections to the appeal. In particular, A. Shahbazyan mentioned that the conclusion that K. Kyupelyan might be an interested party rested on the fact that the latter was considered aggrieved party under the case. He noted that during the preliminary investigation no evidence had been obtained to substantiate the fact that E. Nanyan and T. Aghajanyan  had committed a crime, and at the same time, no person’s rights and freedoms were violated during the preliminary investigation. Hence, A. Shahbazyan considered legal the decision of the agency responsible for preliminary investigation and the court ruling and requested the Court to dismiss the appeal above.

RA Special Investigation Service Senior Investigator for High-Profile Cases A. Ohanyan, responsible for the investigation, also considered the appeal above to be groundless and found that during the preliminary investigation K. Kyupelyan’ rights had not been violated. He also mentioned that there was no need to question any other persons, since the persons pointed by the appellant were not present at the moment the order or the instruction was issued. A. Ohanyan also noted that during the preliminary investigation, the possibilities for obtaining any further evidence were exhausted, and on these grounds he made a decision on not initiating criminal prosecution. He considered well-grounded both his decision and the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court and requested the Court to dismiss the above appeal.

The Court also invited E. Nanyan and H. Mazmanyan to express their opinions on the appeal. E. Nanyan stated that he reiterated in his testimonies that he had not issued any such instruction and requested the Court to dismiss the appeal.

In his speech, H. Mazmanyan stated that he considered the appeal well-grounded since no measures had been taken during the preliminary investigation to find out whether H. Mazmanyan might within his powers detain K. Kyupelyan at the administrative premises of the RA NSS without any instruction.

Then the appellant party made a statement. Particularly, T. Siradeghyan stated that if K. Kyupelyan had been recognized as an aggrieved party since the moment of initiating the criminal proceedings, he would enjoy the rights under Article 59 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure and added that the preliminary investigation failed to find out on which grounds K. Kyupelyan had been kept at the administrative premises of the RA NSS after H. Mazmanyan left as well as who kept him there and on whose instructions, and that the answers to such questions were of essential significance for the outcome of the case.

The parties submitted no motions on providing any further evidence.

Taking into account that a hearing on another case had been scheduled previously, the Court adjourned the examination of the appeal till May 20, 2016, at 1:30 pm.