0 8000 12 11

On January 26, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by judge H. Ayvazyan, held a next-in-turn pretrial court hearing of administrative case on a claim by the RA Police against Gayane Arustamyan to bring her to administrative liability and the counter-claim by Gayane Arustamyan against the RA Police to declare the police actions unlawful. Note that the previous court hearing of this case was adjourned, so that the defender’s representative could submit a counter-claim.

The pretrial court hearing was attended by Sona Melikyan, representative of the RA Police and Senior Legal Adviser to Kentron Division, RA Police Yerevan, and Tatevik Siradeghyan, HCA Vanadzor Yerevan Office lawyer and representative of defendant and counter-plaintiff G. Arustamyan.

At the pretrial court hearing, T. Siradeghyan, representative of G. Arustamyan, asked the plaintiffs’ representative some questions, particularly on whether before uttering the “offensive remark” under the act prescribed by Article 172.3 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences, G. Arustamyan had known the facts that the police officer was an RA Police officer and was performing his duties of public order protection at the moment, and on the circumstances of insulting police officer Davit Piliposyan. In response, S. Melikyan, representative of the RA Police, stated that G. Arustamyan uttered the offensive remark in a public place, the offensive remark was aimed against public and social relations, and the police uniform worn by D. Piliposyan showed that he was a police officer. The representative of the RA Police said she was sure that the offensive remark targeted police officer D. Piliposyan and had nothing to do with his personality as such. G. Arustamyan’s representative also asked about the exact time when the defendant was arrested and released from the Kentronakan Division of Yerevan Department of the RA Police. In answer to this question, the representative of the RA Police said that she might collect accurate data only from the record book of detained persons, and the Court compelled her to provide a copy of such records.

Presiding judge H. Ayvazyan asked the plaintiff’s representative questions on the legislation regulating the use of whistle by the RA Police Patrol Guard Service Regiment officers and cases when they should use it. In response to the question, S. Melikyan noted that the issue was regulated under the RA Law on Police and RA Government Decree on Approving the Regulations of the Patrol Guard Service.

Then T. Siradeghyan, representative of counter-plaintiff G. Arustamyan, introduced the grounds and the subject matter of the counter-claim. She mentioned that the counter-claim required recognizing the police actions unlawful. Particularly, on May 7, 2015, in the evening, G. Arustamyan was walking from the monument to Saryan in the area of the Opera, Yerevan, to the opposite pavement and took the street through green traffic lights. A police officer near Santa Fe Café, half-step away from the counter-plaintiff, whistled loudly, and the counter-plaintiff taken aback reacted by the phrase below: ”Why are you whistling in my ear, you donkey?” The police officer who whistled and other RA Police officers who joined him later showed inhuman and degrading treatment to the counter-plaintiff, did not let her provide any explanations as to her actions and then used physical force and special means in violation of relevant procedure, after which the counter-plaintiff was detained without any grounds and transferred to Kentronakan Division, RA Police Yerevan Department. The actions of the RA Police officers violated the counter-plaintiff’s right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as her right to respect for private and family life, right to liberty and security of person and freedom of movement. T. Siradeghyan submitted to the Court the medical records attesting to the fact that G. Arustamyan sought medical aid on the day following the incident. The records above also documented the bodily injuries of G. Arustamyan. Also, the Court received the psychological examination opinion in compliance with the requirements of the Istanbul Protocol. The Court inquired about the availability of any documents confirming the validity of the examination and compelled the plaintiff’s representative to submit such documents. At the same time, the Court asked which particular police actions should be considered unlawful under the claim. T. Siradeghyan mentioned that the information on such actions is covered in the factual and legal arguments of the counter-claim. The Court compelled T. Siradeghyan to clarify the requirement of the counter-claim, including the specific actions to be considered unlawful as required by the counter-plaintiff. G. Arustamyan’s representative noted that the specification of the claim might depend on the data in the record book of detained persons to be submitted to the Court by the RA Police.

Hence, the Court compelled the parties to submit the required documents in short terms and make relevant clarifications. The Court scheduled another pre-trial hearing for March 2, 2016, 4 pm.