“The body responsible for proceedings hurried”: by prosecutor’s decree, the case of 54-year-old woman who died of snake bite at ‘Erebuni’ Medical Center was sent to preliminary investigation
11:09, January 13, 2017 | News, Own news | Right to an Effective Remedy of Legal Protection, Right to Life | Karine Harutyunyan
Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor carries on dealing with the case of Karine Harutyunyan, 54-year-old resident of Surenavan village in Ararat marz (region) who was taken to ‘Ararat Hospital’ Medical Center after snake bite on August 17, 2015 and died after some days at ‘Erebuni’ Medical Center.
Back on August 31, 2015, Gagik Tadevosyan, son of the deceased woman, consulted HCA Vanadzor and said that G. Mghdesyan, Senior Investigator at the Investigation Division of Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts of the Investigation Department of Yerevan city, RA Investigative Committee, rejected by his decree of August 30, 2015 to initiate criminal proceedings on Karine Harutyunyan’s death.
Upon appealing the said investigator’s decree with the support of the Organization, on November 29, 2015, criminal proceedings were initiated under Article 130(2) of the RA Criminal Code, but after some months the proceedings were discontinued due to the lack of elements of crime.
By expressing a position that the decree on discontinuing criminal proceedings was baseless and was taken in violation of procedural regulations, and that the investigation was incomplete, Tatevik Siradeghyan, representative of the victim’s successor and Lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, required in her complaint lodged to the Prosecutor’s Office to annul the decree on discontinuing criminal proceedings and not initiating criminal prosecution against Mher Hambarchyan, doctor at ‘Ararat Hospital’ Medical Center.
The complaint also contained grounds to the effect that while the aggrieved party’s motion under the criminal proceedings was granted, the questions addressed to the expert in the motion remained unanswered and the aggrieved party’s participation in the expert examination was not ensured without any legal grounds whereas it is the aggrieved party’s procedural right to take part in the expert examination and even more so given that its motion was granted, and in this case, the expert has no legal grounds not to ensure the aggrieved party’s participation in the expert examination.
Also, the forensic expert examination opinion does not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code; it has no mention of either the types and methods of the taken examinations or any references.
By his decree of December 6, 2016, the Prosecutor of Yerevan city, RA Prosecution Office, granted the complaint of the aggrieved party and stated that the agency responsible for the proceedings hurried; as a result, the rights of the victim’s successor were violated and the decree was premature.
Thus, Senior Investigator G. Mghdesyan’s decree on discontinuing the criminal proceedings and not initiating criminal prosecution was annulled and the case was sent for preliminary investigation.