Judgment on Taron Siradeghyan’s case to be announced on March 2, 2016
10:08, February 11, 2016 | News, Own news
On February 10, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by H. Ayvazyan, resumed trial proceedings on the administrative case based on the claim by the RA Police against Taron Siradeghyan on imposing on him administrative sanctions under Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences, and on the counter-claim by Taron Siradeghyan against the RA Police on declaring the police actions unlawful.
Note that the day of announcement of the judgment on this case was scheduled for December 11, 2015; however, the Court ruled to resume the trial proceedings of the case.
The court hearing was attended by Aida Demirkhanyan, representative of RA Police, plaintiff and counter-defendant, T. Siradeghyan, defendant and counter-plaintiff, and his representative Tatevik Siradeghyan.
The Court stated that it resumed the trial proceedings to establish certain circumstances related to the case. In particular, the Court addressed some questions to the representative of the plaintiff RA Police to find out for what particular action the Police required to impose administrative sanctions on T. Siradeghyan and what particular orders he had disobeyed. The representative of the Police mentioned that T. Siradeghyan had blocked the traffic sector on Saryan Street, obstructed the traffic and was given a lawful order. She also noted that crossing through the police cordon mentioned in the administrative records made part of ongoing actions and the final act was blocking the traffic sector. As for the testimonies of the witness police officer questioned in court, the representative of the Police stated that T. Siradeghyan was arrested by force, despite the fact that the witness had said that after he had told T. Siradeghyan about his arrest, the latter sat into the police car of his own free will.
Defendant and counter-plaintiff T. Siradeghyan’s representative asked a question to specify the veracity of the police officer’s testimony and later, considering that in his capacity of a witness, the police officer had undertaken not to give false testimony, motioned to take measures to establish the circumstances of false testimony. The Court noted that it would examine the veracity of the evidence at the stage of evidence assessment. Then T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to refer to the motion in its final judicial act.
Each of the parties insisted on its own claims requesting the Court to uphold them and dismiss those of the opposite party.
Considering the trial proceedings completed, the Court scheduled the date for announcement of the judgment.
The court judgment on this case will be announced on March 2, 2016, at 5:57 pm.