0 8000 12 11

On December 21, 2015, the RA Court of Criminal Appeals, presided by judge G. Avetisyan, resumed the examination of the appeals of the representatives of the successor to victim and attorneys of the defendants on the case of 2-year-and-3-month-old Lia Misakyan’s death.

Note that at the previous court hearing, defendant Zarine Ayvazyan’s attorney Yerem Sargsyan lodged an appeal, but could not complete it due to another court hearing scheduled.

The court hearing of December 21, 2015 was attended by Prosecutor Davit Karapetyan, victim’s successor Georgi Misakyan, his representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, defendants Lilit Vardanyan and Zarine Ayvazyan and their attorneys Givi Hovhannisyan and Yerem Sargsyan, respectively.

Upon resuming his appeal, Z. Ayvazyan’s attorney Y. Sargsyan provided grounds for the inadmissibility of considering as evidence the expert opinions of the forensic examination and re-examination of the corpse under the case and the incompetence of the expert responsible for such forensic examination. By his appeal, Y. Sargsyan motioned to reverse the judgment of the lower court, declare Z. Ayvazyan innocent, non-guilty and acquitted, and if the Court considered it impossible to meet the request above, to reverse the lower court’s judgment and submit the case to a relevant lower court for re-examination.

Also, Y. Sargsyan motioned to declare inadmissibility of considering as evidence the expert opinions of the forensic examination and re-examination of the corpse and to question Argam Hovsepyan, Chairman of the commission forensic examination.

Note that similar motions were filed by Lilit Vardanyan’s attorney G. Hovannisyan, who also motioned to summon as a witness and question the on-duty nurse Lusine Minasyan. After Y. Sargsyan presented his motion, the parties to the trial stated their objections to the appeals. In his objections, prosecutor D. Karapetyan touched upon substantiation of corpus delicti in the action of the defendants. He stated that the experts questioned during the trial, including the commission forensic examination experts, noted that if the child had received treatment by indication, there would be a 70% probability that she would be saved. He found that there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the defendants’ actions and Lia Misakyan’s death. D. Karapetyan asked the Court to dismiss the appeals of the defendants’ attorneys.

The successor to the victim G. Misakyan noted that at Arabkir Medical Center, Lia Minasyan had received no other treatment except antifebrile agents. And his representative T. Siradeghyan added that while doctor L. Vardanyan had prescribed a series of laboratory tests, she had shown no consistency in their performance. As a result, some of the tests were delayed and some others were not performed at all; at the same time, it is attending doctors’ duty to oversee the work of paramedical personnel. Hence, T. Siradeghyan also requested the Court to dismiss the appeals of the defendants’ attorneys. The latter objected to the appeal of the aggrieved party. G. Hovhannisyan noted that the emotional statement by L. Vardanyan after announcement of the judgment might not serve as a basis for imposing on her additional punishment since this issue had not been considered at the court of first instance. And Z. Ayvazyan’s attorney Y. Sargsyan stated that his client carried on her work at Arabkir Medical Center and had made no errors so far, and there was no longer any need for additional punishment. Thus, the defendants’ attorneys requested the Court to dismiss the appeal of the aggrieved party and the defendants shared the position of their attorneys.

After the parties lodged their objections, the Court tried to find out whether they would like to file any motions on submitting additional evidence. The prosecution party filed no such motions and defendant L. Vardayan’s attorney insisted on his motions under the appeal objected both by prosecutor D. Karapetyan and the successor to the victim and his representative. T. Siradeghyan noted that the attorney failed to substantiate the fact that the dismissal of similar motions by the lower court had been baseless. She also noted that there were no grounds for questioning Lusine Minasyan as there were no grounds to the effect that she possessed any significant information, and as for Argam Hovsepyan, all the members of his expert commission had been questioned. Based on the above, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to dismiss the motions. After examining the motions above, the Court ruled to dismiss the motion on summoning Lusine Minasyan as a witness and questioning her. As for the other motions, the Court adjourned their examination to consider them in the retiring room and stated that once there were sufficient grounds, the Court was not bound whatsoever in terms of resuming the proceedings. Y. Sargsyan motioned to provide some new evidence. He said that he insisted on the motions within his appeal, however, the Court’s position on G. Hovhannisyan’s motions made it clear that it would also adjourn the examination of his motions on similar claims and therefore he lodged another motion to assign another forensic examination to establish the causes of Lia Misakyan’s death, any medical errors by the doctors and the cause and effect relationship between such errors and her death. G. Hovhannisyan also joined the motion. Prosecutor D. Karapetyan objected to the motion and stated that all the expert examinations within the case had attested to the medical error and therefore, there was no need for another expert examination. G. Misakyan also objected to the motion. T. Siradeghyan noted that based on the requirements of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the defense attorney should provide grounds to the effect that he/she had no objective opportunity to file relevant motion with a lower court or that it was dismissed without any grounds. In this regard, she noted that Y. Sargsyan had not filed such a motion, and the Court had not limited in any way his opportunity to file such a motion. Therefore, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to dismiss the motion above as well. Y. Sargsyan stated that he had no objective possibility to file a motion since the rejection of the previous motions as such attested to the biased attitude of the Court.

Having considered the motion on forensic re-examination, the Court dismissed it due to the violation of the procedure for filing such motions as established by law.

The Court declared the examination of the appeals completed and left to the retiring room to make a ruling.

The RA Court of Criminal Appeals will announce its judicial act on this case on December 21, 2015, at 10:30 am.