0 8000 12 11

As reported before, on May 30, 2016, the General Jurisdiction Court of Lori marz (region) dismissed the claim of Avan Mental Health Center CJSC against HCA Vanadzor and Zh. Amarikyan on the requirements on compelling them to convey public apology, publish the court judgment in the mass media and confiscate the compensation amount as set by law for insult and defamation.

Based on the provisions of the RA Civil Code and invoking a number of case-law decisions of the RA Court of Cassation, the Court does not consider Zh. Amarikyan’s statements referred to by the plaintiff party to constitute insult and defamation and finds that according to the evidence examined under the case, Zh. Amarikyan was indeed transferred to the psychiatric facilities against her will and due to her mental health problems, she might have had a sense that she suffered from the atmosphere at the psychiatric facilities, which could by no means be viewed as destroying the plaintiff’s dignity or business reputation and could not contain an intent to undermine the reputation of a person, given that Zh. Amarikyan merely represented her own experiences and actions during her stay at the psychiatric facilities.

As for the claim against HCA Vanadzor, the Court states that in its report referred to above, the Organization addressed all the institutions it monitored, including Avan Mental Health Centre and presented its evaluative judgments as well about Zh. Amarikyan in terms of the legality of the actions of courts.

Also, the Organization provided the information with reference to its author, in this case, Zh. Amarikyan and given this, HCA Vanadzor is released from any liability.

Along with the circumstances above, the Court also dismissed the claim based on the limitation period stating that the plaintiff submitted the claim to the Court in violation of the period set by law.

Given that among other requirements, the plaintiff party also required to seize from the defendant party 3 million AMD, the Court accordingly set a state duty of 60,000 AMD to be seized from the plaintiff in favor of the RA state budget.

Based on the above, by its judgment the Court ruled to dismiss the claim in full.