0 8000 12 11

On November 21, 2016, the General Jurisdiction Court of First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by Judge M. Martirosyan, resumed examination of ‘Armenian Women’s Front’ member Susanna Simonyan’s complaint against V. Dolmazyan’s, Prosecutor at Investigation Department for High-Profile Cases at the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, refusal to restore the missed deadline for appealing decision on rejecting initiation of criminal proceedings. The hearing was attended by S. Simonyan’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, V. Dolmazyan, Prosecutor at Investigation Department for High-Profile Cases at the RA Prosecutor General’s Office.

S. Simonyan’s representative noted that it was impossible to obtain other documents and therefore requested the Court to consider the complaint based on the evidence attached to it and presented in the court. V. Dolmazyan, Prosecutor at Investigation Department for High-Profile Cases at the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, insisted on his position and to support it, submitted to the Court a copy of the forensic expert examination opinion provided during the preparation of the materials and a picture posted by the mass media on November 6, 2016. V. Dolmazyan noted that according to the expert opinion, S. Simonyan was referred to traumatologist’s consultation but she did not go to see the doctor. At the same time, he said that while on the court hearing S. Simonyan said that she was still unable to use her hand, she held a poster in that hand at the assembly of November 6, 2016. Upon getting familiar with the above documents, T. Siradeghyan said that the forensic expert examination opinion mentioned that S. Simonyan did not seek medical care for her injury, but some documents were submitted to the Court confirming the fact that S. Simonyan sought and received medical care. T. Siradeghyan also added that at the court hearing S. Simonyan did not say that she was unable to use her hand, but rather that she had not fully recovered yet and had some problems with her hand. T. Siradeghyan insisted on the complaint above by noting that the provided evidence was sufficient to conclude that S. Simonyan had a reasonable excuse for missing the deadline for appealing the decision. Considering the examination of the complaint completed, the Court withdrew to the deliberation room to make a ruling. Then, by its announced ruling, the Court rejected the said complaint on the pretext of its being groundless.