Police demands to hold liable a participant of the assembly of March 23
19:52, September 5, 2016 | News, Own news
On September 5, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by S. Hovakimyan, before considering the motion on extending the detention of Gevorg Safaryan, examined a claim of the RA Police against Naira Badalyan, participant of an assembly held on March 23, 2016, requiring to bring N. Badalyan to administrative responsibility under Article 180.1(11 and 15) of the RA Code of Administrative Offense (Violation of the procedure for holding assemblies prescribed by law).
Note that a number of the assembly participants blocked the street by lying on the traffic sector of Mashtots Avenue and chaining themselves to the asphalt. Then they were apprehended and taken to Kentronakan Division of the RA Police Yerevan City Department, where administrative proceedings were initiated against them based on their failure to comply with their duties of assembly participants and obey the legal orders of the police to ensure the peaceful and normal course of the assembly.
The pretrial court hearing was attended by Sona Melikyan, representative of the RA Police, defendant Naira Badalyan and her representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor.
Presiding judge S. Hovakimyan stated that the 1st pretrial court hearing was adjourned due to return of the letter sent by post to N. Badalyan and handed the letter to her.
Upon presenting the substance and grounds of the claim, plaintiff’s representative S. Melikyan stated that the defendant took part in the assembly of March 23, 2016 when the assembly participants blocked the traffic sector of Mashtots Avenue and then failed to obey the legal orders of the RA Police officers to open the street and stop obstructing the normal course of the assembly; because of their failure to obey such orders, they were taken to Kentronakan Division of the RA Police Yerevan City Department.
In response to the Court’s question, defendant’s representative T. Siradeghyan stated that the defendant party actually received the court ruling on admitting the case at the court hearing and would therefore submit a response to the claim within the prescribed 2 weeks’ term and based on that motioned to adjourn the court hearing.
Afterwards, the plaintiff party submitted to the Court as additional evidence an extract from the register of apprehended persons and the mass media publications on the incident on an electronic storage device.
The court hearing was adjourned; the next pretrial court hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2016, at 2 pm.