0 8000 12 11

On September 8, 2015, the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts, Yerevan, RA, presided by judge A. Bektashyan, resumed examination of Hovhannes Katrjyan’s appeal against the decree by G. Margaryan, Prosecutor at RA Yerevan City Prosecutor’s Office, on discontinuing criminal prosecution and criminal proceedings, preventive measure and search. The court hearing was attended by appellant H. Katrjyan, his representative, HCA Vanadzor lawyer Tatevik Siradeghyan and prosecutor G. Margaryan. Upon presenting the grounds and rationale of the appeal, appellant H. Katrjyan’s representative found that G. Margaryan, Prosecutor at Yerevan City Prosecutor’s Office, had failed to make a comprehensive assessment of the evidence obtained under the case and rather gave a subjective assessment which served as a basis for discontinuing criminal proceedings, and the preliminary investigation failed to aim to restore the victim’s violated rights and freedoms. Particularly, before the surgeries, Head of the Center and surgeon S. Jamalyan failed to inform the victim of the manufacturer’s warranty life time of the devices to be installed, whereas the both surgeries were paid under the price list with surgery costs depending on the life time of the devices to be installed. However, S. Jamalyan’s note on the life time of the devices was of an advisory nature; this is not envisaged by the device manufacturers. H. Katrjyan’s representative also pointed out in the appeal that the preliminary investigation had shown that in 2004 a used device was installed in H. Katrjyan’s body, despite the fact that the Medtronic company did not encourage re-implantation of devices. T. Siradeghyan found these arguments sufficient to show that S. Jamalyan’s action contained corpus delicti of a fraud under Article 178, RA Criminal Code. Thus, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to bind G. Margaryan, Senior Prosecutor of Yerevan City Prosecutor’s Office to stop violation of the rights and freedoms of H. Katrjyan. Victim H. Katrjyan also provided some observations regarding the legality and validity of the decree in question. Prosecutor G. Margaryan objected to the appeal and insisted on his position under the decree. Presiding judge A. Bektashyan stated that he found it necessary to adjourn the examination to get familiar with the preliminary investigation files. The next court hearing on this case was scheduled for September 29, 2015, 10:30 am.