0 8000 12 11

On February 4, 2016, the general jurisdiction court of first instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by R. Mkhitaryan, examined the HCA Vanadzor complaint against the RA Special Investigation Service. By the complaint above, Artur Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, demanded to stop the inaction of the RA Special Investigation Service and compel it to make a decision on the Organization’s report of December 10, 2015 and submit it to the Organization.

The hearing was attended by A. Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor and Tigran Khachikyan, representative of the RA Special Investigation Service.

After finding out that there were not circumstances excluding the presence of the presiding judge and the court hearing secretary, the Court started to examine the case.

A. Sakunts mentioned that back on December 10, 2015 he had filed a crime report with the RA Special Investigation Service on forging the referendum results at a number of polling stations. In particular, the reports expressed a suspicion that at the polling stations with 60 or higher percentage of voter turnout at the referendum of December 6, 2015, either stuffing or voting instead of absent people occurred.

However, in response to the Organization’s report, the RA Special Investigation Service stated in a letter that the Organization’s report contained no specific information on any crime either prepared or already committed, and it was a necessary condition to consider the application as a crime report.

A. Sakunts referred to the relevant provisions of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure that it was compulsory to make a decision on a crime report both in case of initiating criminal proceedings and in case of rejecting to initiate such proceedings. A. Sakunts noted that the letter of the RA Special Investigation Service read that the materials attached to the crime report were examined in details and it was concluded that they lacked any grounds for initiating criminal proceedings. However, according to A. Sakunts, it was only in case of making a decision under the procedure established by the criminal procedural law that the person who had submitted the crime report might be informed of the actions taken and appeal the decision, if necessary. Also, A. Sakunts found that under the examination of the report, the fact of whether the signatures in voting lists were put by relevant persons might be checked at least at one polling station; this would attest to ensuring an objective and complete examination.

T. Khachikyan, representative of the RA Special Investigation Service, mentioned that the RA Special Investigation Service objected to the appeal since submitting a crime report did not mean yet that it contained a prima facie suspicion of a crime, and the registered threshold of a voter turnout of 50-60% at the referendum could not be regarded as prima facie suspicion of a crime. T. Khachikyan referred to the position of the RA Court of Cassation that a person’s application could be viewed as a crime report if it contained specific elements of crime.

Then A. Sakunts mentioned that in any case, the RA Special Investigation Service was to make a decision but it only responded to the Organization by a letter.

In his turn, T. Khachikyan noted that the Court of Cassation considered it legitimate to respond to the Organization by a letter since the report contained no elements of crime.

Presiding judge R. Mkhitaryan asked whether A. Sakunts had appealed the inaction of the RA Special Investigation Service in upper courts of law. A. Sakunts mentioned having filed a complaint with the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, which provided a similar response, and the court received the copies of the complaint filed with upper court and its response.

Then the court asked the parties what they thought about involving a representative of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office in the examination of the complaint.

While A. Sakunts did not object to it, he noted that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office took a similar approach and its involvement might not have any significant impact. T. Khachikyan also had no objections and left the resolution of the issue to the discretion of the Court.

Presiding judge R. Mkhitaryan decided to submit the copy of the complaint to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office so that it could attend the examination.

Thus, the trial was adjourned till February 18, 2016, 4:30 pm.

See also: hcav.am