0 8000 12 11

On March 23, 2016, the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts, Yerevan, RA, presided by judge M. Melkonyan, resumed examination of the appeal submitted by victim/aggrieved party Karen Kyupelyan’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, HCA Vanadzor lawyer. By the appeal above, T. Siradeghyan required that the Court annulled the RA SIS Senior Investigator for High-Profile Cases A. Ohanyan’s decree of October 19, 2015 on not initiating criminal prosecution.

The hearing was attended by plaintiff K. Kyupelyan, his representatives Artur Sakunts and T. Siradeghyan, and investigator Ashot Ohanyan, responsible for the proceedings.

K. Kyupelyan’s representative T. Siradeghyan presented the grounds of the appeal. She mentioned that on November 1, 2007, at about 6 pm, RA National Security Service officers Eduard Nanayan and Hrant Mazmanyan and another RA NSS officer apprehended K. Kyupelyan by his own vehicle from Zvartnots Airport to the administrative premises of RA NSS, where he reached at about 6 pm and was released on  November 2, 2007, at about 5 pm after almost a 1-day detention. T. Siradeghyan noted that by its decree on not initiating criminal prosecution under preliminary investigation, the agency responsible for the proceedings found that the data provided by the victim/aggrieved party might have been biased in nature, whereas in its procedural decision, the agency responsible for the proceedings just provided its assumption without any grounds. Also, by the decree of the investigator responsible for the proceedings, K. Kyupelyan was involved in the case as a victim/aggrieved party based on moral damages inflicted under the crime. Moreover, T. Siradeghyan also mentioned that despite the fact that the agency responsible for the proceedings was aware of the grounds for declaring K. Kyupelyan as a victim/aggrieved party immediately after the initiation of the criminal proceedings, K. Kyupelyan was declared as such only 2,5 months after initiation of the criminal proceedings above.

Also, the victim’s representative noted that when providing evidence both as a witness and as a victim, K. Kyupelyan was warned of the responsibility for giving false testimony. T. Siradeghyan also considered groundless the conclusion of the agency responsible for the proceedings on the exhaustion of any remedies to obtain other evidence under the case and mentioned that according to the testimonies of the persons questioned under the case, other persons and officers of relevant department also possessed information about the incident. T. Siradeghyan also noted that the agency responsible for the proceedings had not established yet whether E. Nanyan and T. Aghajanyan should have been informed within their powers under their official duties of the release or detention at the RA NSS premises of the apprehended person.

Hence, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to annul the RA SIS Senior Investigator for High-Profile Cases A. Ohanyan’s decree of October 19, 2015 on not initiating criminal prosecution.

A. Ohanyan, responsible for the proceedings, expressed his response position on the appeal. In particular, he mentioned that under the criminal proceedings initiated, charges were brought against H. Mazmanyan, RA NSS officer, who was found guilty by a court judgment of detaining K. Kyupelyan at the RA NSS administrative premises for almost a day. He also noted that sufficient grounds had been provided under the decree on victim’s constituting an interested party and added that in one case, the person’s testimonies were considered sufficient to bring charges and in another, they were not. He also mentioned that the victim had noted in his testimony that the persons in question were not present at the moment the order or instruction on keeping him at the RA NSS administrative premises was issued, and the lack of any need to question the other officers was substantiated by the fact that the victim was kept in a room where only H. Mazmanyan was present. Hence, the agency responsible for the proceedings requested that the Court dismissed the appeal above.

Victim K. Kyupelyan’s representative A. Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, made a statement mentioning that detecting a restriction of a right was different from detecting that such restriction was committed by a number of officials and added that this was done in an attempt to conceal the crime.

A. Sakunts noted that in terms of protection of K. Kyupelyan’s rights and legal interests, it was necessary to declare him a victim once the criminal proceedings were initiated, since the procedural status of witness and victim provided various scopes of rights. A. Sakunts added that K. Kyupelyan was declared victim on October 2, 2015, his representatives were involved on October 9, 2015, and the decree on not initiating criminal prosecution under the case was taken on October 19, 2015.

T. Siradeghyan also made a statement mentioning that the preliminary investigation and the proceedings substantiated that H. Mazmanyan kept K. Kyupelyan on the RA NSS administrative premises not for a day, but for a night, since at about 9 am, he completed his duty and left while K. Kyupelyan was still kept at the RA NSS administrative premises.

Victim K. Kyupelyan also expressed his position on the complaint mentioning that no relevant records were made as he entered and left the RA SIS administrative premises. He also stated that in spite of meeting all the property import requirements and providing relevant documentation, he was apprehended for smuggling.

The agency responsible for the proceedings considered the arguments of the appellant’s representatives to be baseless and mentioned that after being declared a victim/aggrieved party and having the representatives involved, the victim/aggrieved party submitted no motions to the agency responsible for the proceedings.

The Court passed to the examination of the documents attached to the appeal and the files submitted to the Court by the agency responsible for the proceedings, after which it considered the examination of the appeal completed and retired to the deliberation room to make a ruling.

By its ruling, the Court dismissed K. Kyupelyan’s and his representatives’ appeal and upheld the decree of the agency responsible for the proceedings.

See also: hcav.am