0 8000 12 11

On March 2, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge H. Ayvazyan, resumed examination of the administrative case on a claim by the RA Police against Gayane Arustamyan to impose on her administrative sanctions and the counter-claim by Gayane Arustamyan against the RA Police to declare the police actions unlawful.

The court hearing was attended by Sona Melikyan, representative of the RA Police and Senior Legal Adviser to Kentron Division, RA Police Yerevan, and Tatevik Siradeghyan, HCA Vanadzor Yerevan Office lawyer and representative of defendant and counter-plaintiff G. Arustamyan.

The Court examined the copy of the register of persons apprehended to the police submitted to the Court; accordingly, G. Arustamyan was arrested at 8:55 pm and released at 11:55 pm.

At the court hearing, G. Arustamyan’s representative submitted a specified requirement of the counter-claim requesting the Court to declare unlawful the RA Police actions below: whistling, failure of the police officer to introduce himself to G. Arustamyan, insulting, violation of the procedures for using physical force and special means, violation of the arrest procedures, video shooting of G. Arustamyan without her consent, which led to the violation of her right to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, right to respect for private and family life, right to liberty and security of the person, and freedom of movement. Then T. Siradeghyan also submitted to the Court several documents in support of the validity of G. Arustamyan’s psychological examination as provided at the previous pre-trial court hearing.

Considering the case prepared for trial examination, the Court decided to start the trial examination.

At the trial, the trial participants made opening remarks.

In her opening remarks, S. Melikyan, RA Police representative, mentioned that on May 7, 2015, at about 8 pm, the RA Police Patrol Guard Service Regiment officer D. Piliposyan was on duty in the Opera area and whistled in an attempt to prevent a woman on the opposite pavement from crossing the street against the lights. At that moment, another woman insulted the police officer on duty by the phrase below, ”Why are you whistling, you donkey?” Then, according to the RA Police, G. Arustamyan continued uttering insulting words and failed to obey the calls to stop such behavior. The plaintiff’s representative stated that since it appeared impossible to draw up a protocol on administrative offense on the spot, G. Arustamyan was arrested and apprehended to the police station; both the detention, and the administrative proceedings were performed in compliance with relevant requirements. S. Melikyan, RA Police representative, found that G. Arustamyan committed an administrative offense and requested the Court to impose on her administrative sanctions for insulting a police officer or a serviceman performing his duties of public order protection.

T. Siradeghyan, defendant’s and counter-plaintiff’s representative, addressed some questions to the RA Police representative and afterwards presented her objections to the claim. In particular, T. Siradeghyan first provided grounds to the effect that insult was an institution typical of civil and legal relations, and no administrative sanctions might be imposed on a person for it. Then, she noted that this case also lacked the guilt, the mandatory attribute of the subjective aspect of offense, since before uttering the “insult”, G. Arustamyan was not aware that she was insulting a police officer or a serviceman on his duty of public order protection. T. Siradeghyan also provided grounds on the lack of sufficient substantiation of the claim and requested the Court to dismiss the claim.

Then G. Arustamyan’s representative provided the factual and legal grounds of the counter-claim substantiating the violation of G. Arustamyan’s right to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, right to respect for private and family life, right to liberty and security of the person, and freedom of movement.

In the counter-claim, T. Siradeghyan provided grounds to the effect that the RA Police Patrol Guard Service Regiment officer had no right to use a whistle in such a case since in case of violation of traffic regulations, it is the RA Traffic Police that is competent to take the actions in compliance with the RA Law on Principles of Administration and Administrative Proceedings”.

T. Siradeghyan also presented allegations of violations of procedural regulations, i.e. failure of the police officer to introduce himself to G. Arustamyan and to present the grounds for using physical force and special means and grounds for arresting her, video shooting her without her consent and depriving her of liberty without any grounds. As a result, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to uphold the counter-claim.

The representative of the RA Police, plaintiff and counter-defendant, asked G. Arustanmyan’s representative some questions and then the Court ruled to adjourn the court hearing due to the end of the working day.

The next court hearing on this case is scheduled for April 19, 2016, at 4 pm.