0 8000 12 11

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor protects the rights of M. Khachatryan, successor to military serviceman Hayk Khachatryan who died of chickenpox on December 30, 2011.

Under the initiated criminal proceedings, charges were brought against Lieutenant Colonel Minas Mkrtchyan, Head of Neurological Department of the military unit and Mikayel Mikayelyan, Head of the Central Clinical Military Hospital.

At the hearing of this case held on November 17, 2015, the defense filed a motion to suspend the procedural status of victim Hayk Khachatryan and his successor Movses Khachatryan referring to Article 309(1) (Limits of court trial) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The motion was justified by the assumption that the accused M. Mikayelyan and M. Mkrtchyan had nothing to do with Hayk Khachatryan’s death.

Prosecutor A. Yeghiazaryan did not object to the motion, stating that the proceedings justified the lack of any causal link between Hayk Khachatryan’s death and the actions of the defendants.

M. Shushanyan, representative of the victim’s successor, objected to the motion and argued in his position submitted to the Court that the Republic of Armenia, represented by Prosecutor A. Yeghiazaryan, stated that it was under no obligation to carry out effective investigation under Article 3 (Prohibition of torture) and Article 2 (Right to life) of the ECHR.

However, on December 29, 2015, the General Jurisdiction Court of First Instance of Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts of Yerevan ruled to grant the motion of the defense.

On January 11, 2016, M. Shushanyan, representative of the victim’s successor, appealed the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of First Instance of Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts to the Court of Appeals stating that the ruling on granting the motion violated a number of rights of the victim’s successor.

Hence, the preliminary investigation revealed the negligence by an official of the military medical facilities, which caused severe implications, in this case death. And the court ruling violates the rights and legitimate interests of Movses Khachatryan involved in the proceedings as the successor to the victim. Moreover, the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates neither any grounds, nor procedure for suspending the status of a successor to victim, and therefore, by granting the motion to suspend the procedural status of the successor to the victim, the Court goes beyond its powers granted by law.

In the appeal, the aggrieved party also expressed an opinion that actually, the defense, prosecutor and the Court entered into an agreement to remove the aggrieved party from the proceedings and make the future judgment final. Hence, the aggrieved party saw premeditation in the Court’s position; the Court has already predetermined the outcome of the case and by its position, the aggrieved party is actually deprived of the possibility to appeal the court judgment.

In its appeal, the aggrieved party also noted that such rulings constituted the causes underlying the ECtHR judgments against the Republic of Armenia, which considerably damaged the international reputation of Armenia.

By its ruling of February 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals left the appeal of M. Shushanyan, representative of Hayk Khachatryan’s successor, dated January 11, 2016, without any consequences on the pretext that the judicial act appealed was not subject to appeal under Article 3761 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code.

Note that the criminal proceedings initiated on the death of Hayk Khachatryan have lasted for years at the court of first instance; under the proceedings, Hayk Khachatryan was recognized as a victim and Movses Khachatryan as a successor to the victim.

By ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Erebuni and Nubarashen districts of Yerevan dated February 5, 2015, the criminal proceedings were suspended under Para 5(2) of RA National Assembly Decree of October 3, 2013 on Announcing Amnesty for the 22^nd Anniversary of Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Armenia.

The ruling above was appealed to the RA Court of Appeals, which on May 21, 2015 ruled to reverse the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, on suspending the criminal proceedings and stopping the criminal prosecution against the defendants and send the case to court for new examination by another judge. It should be added that the parties to the trial also applied to the RA Court of Cassation, which, however, did not admit the appeal.