0 8000 12 11

On May 2, 2016, the RA Court of Criminal Appeals, presided by T. Sahakyan, examined the appeal filed by aggrieved party Gayane Arustamyan’s representative, Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, against the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan city of  March 17, 2016 on dismissing the appeal.

Note that G. Arustamyan’s representative Artur Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, had appealed to the General Jurisdiction Court of First Instance the decree of the RA Special Investigation Service on not initiating criminal prosecution and discontinuing the criminal proceedings under the initiated criminal case, dated August 8, 2015.

The examination of the appeal was attended by G. Arustamyan’s representative T. Siradeghyan and Investigator for High-Profile Cases A. Tadevosyan responsible for the investigation.

Upon making sure that there were no challenge motions, the Court passed to the presentation of the procedural background of the case, after which the plaintiff’s representative took the floor to present the grounds of the appeal. She noted that the court had violated the provisions of Article 17, Article 2 and Article 127 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code and presented the arguments underlying such a conclusion. In particular, T. Siradeghyan noted that the investigation was inefficient and it was not conducted in a way to reveal the crime, i.e. the fact of the torture and degrading treatment and to bring the perpetrators to relevant responsibility. The evidence and testimonies in the case were assessed by subjective perception; the court took as a basis the testimonies provided by the police officers disregarding those of G. Arustamyan who suffered torture and degrading treatment and was declared aggrieved party under the criminal case. T. Siradeghyan also touched upon the dismissal of the aggrieved party’s motion on assigning additional expert examination and failure to assign a forensic and psychological examination, holding identification parade with one police officer only during the preliminary investigation in spite of the fact that G. Arustamyan was arrested by several police officers. She stated that the aggrieved party had by its own initiative arranged for G. Arustamyan’s psychological examination, and the psychologists who conducted it found that there was a high degree of compliance of the findings of her psychological examination and the report on the alleged incidents of torture, and dynamics of her psychological state coincided with the progress of the alleged incidents of torture. Also, G. Arustamyan’s representative provided arguments to the effect that the judicial act of the Court was not substantiated adequately by referring to the positions expressed in this connection by the RA Court of Cassation. Hence, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to reverse the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan city, RA, dated March 17, 2016 and send the case for re-examination.

Investigator A. Tadevosyan, responsible for the investigation, presented his objections to the appeal. He stated that the preliminary investigation had been carried out in compliance with the requirements of Article 17 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code and considered his decree to be well-grounded adding that it had been checked and approved by the RA Prosecutor General’s Office. He stated that the decree above took into account G. Arustamyan’s testimonies and the video recording made by the police officers in the scene of the incident as well, and as for the motion on assigning an additional forensic examination, its discussion was delayed, the expert was questioned in that regard and afterwards the motion was dismissed. A. Tadevosyan also stated that the incident occurred by the initiative of G. Arustamyan; it was her who came up to the police officer and insulted him and she admitted this fact. Hence, A. Tadevosyan found that both his own decision and that of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the General Jurisdiction Court of First Instance, respectively were well-grounded and requested the Court to dismiss the appeal above.

Presiding judge T. Sahakyan asked the agency responsible for the investigation some questions, in response to which the latter stated that G. Arustamyan had been apprehended for insulting a police officer, she was handcuffed for not obeying the police officers and the video showed G. Arustamyan insulting the police officers. Also, he noted that the identification parade was conducted with the police officer whose actions were considered illegal by G. Arustamyan.

T. Siradeghyan added that the case was not initiated by G. Arustamyan since her expression was uttered after the whistling of the police officer, as she was taken by surprise and reacted to the whistling half a step away from her.

Considering the examination of the appeal completed, the Court withdrew to the deliberation room to make a ruling. By the announced ruling, the Court upheld the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal above.