0 8000 12 11

On April 27, 2017 the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan city, RA, presided by judge M. Melkonyan, resumed examination of the case of 2-year-and-3-month-old Lia Misakyan who died at ‘Arabkir’ Medical Center on January 2, 2013.

The court hearing was attended by defendants L. Vardanyan and Z. Ayvazyan charged under Article 130(2) of the RA Criminal Code, their defense counsels Givi Hovhannisyan and Y. Sargsyan, respectively, prosecutor M. Shahgaldyan, victim’s successor G. Misakyan and his representative T. Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan office of HCA Vanadzor.  

Presiding judge M. Melkonyan reminded that the previous court hearing had been postponed to give defense counsel Y. Sargsyan an opportunity to file with the court a self-challenge motion.

Before filing a self-challenge motion, Y. Sargsyan filed a motion on applying to the RA Constitutional Court to determining the constitutionality of the regulation to be applied under the case. The motion was justified by the fact that the comments in the judicial act of the RA Cassation Court were binding on the court and in this situation the court could not be objective and impartial as under Article 419 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the case should be examined to the extent established by the RA Cassation Court. According to the defense counsel, the Cassation Court had to refrain from any final assessment on that issue not to constrain the court by its conclusions during the re-examination and he insisted that the RA Cassation Court’s comment on Article 419 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code contradicted Article 63 of the RA Constitution and motioned to apply to the Constitutional Court to determine the constitutionality of the comment on that regulation in the law enforcement practice.

The prosecutor objected to the motion by expressing a position that the court was not constrained by the RA Cassation Court’s ruling and there was no need to apply to the RA Constitutional Court.

T. Siradeghyan, representative of the victim’s successor, saw in the motion an intention to delay the trial proceedings noting that the first part of the motion contained grounds for self-challenge but its final part presented another requirement. Then she said that in his motion, the defense counsel addressed only a few points of the Cassation Court’s ruling, whereas it should be assessed by its structured content and argued that the ruling did not constrain in any way the general jurisdiction court from conducting an independent and impartial examination of the case as the extent of the re-examination of the case did not constrain the court from admitting any evidence provided by the parties.

T. Siradeghyan added that the motion invoked the provisions of the RA Constitution that had not taken effect yet. Also, the right to apply to the RA Constitutional Court rested with the court and the court might apply to the RA Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the legal regulations applied under the case it examined, whereas the defense counsel referred to the provisions prescribing the RA Cassation Court’s powers that might not be applied in any way to the examination of this case and therefore T. Siradeghyan asked to reject the motion.

Defendant L. Vardanyan’s defense counsel G. Hovhannisyan expressed an opinion that the RA Cassation Court’s ruling suggested that the trial examination would be of formal nature as the extent of the examination was determined. He found that the motion was well-grounded and was to be granted.

After hearing defense counsel Y. Sargsyan’s position on the arguments of the parties, the court left to the retiring room to make a ruling.

By its announced ruling, the court rejected the motion.

The next court hearing will be held on June 2, 2017, at 3 pm.

See also: ECtHR to examine 2-year-and-3-month-old Lia Misakyan’s case