0 8000 12 11

On March 24, 2016, the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by judge G. Poghosyan, resumed examination of the appeal of A. Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, dated October 14, 2015 against the decree of H. Yenokyan, prosecutor at Department for High-Profile Cases, RA Prosecutor General’s Office, on initiating criminal proceedings.

The hearing was attended by Arayik Zalyan, HCA Vanadzor lawyer and representative of A. Sakunts, and H. Yenokyan, prosecutor at Department for High-Profile Cases, RA Prosecutor General’s Office.

Upon making sure that there was no need for any challenge motions, the Court passed to the examination of the merits of the appeal.

A. Zalyan, representative of A. Sakunts, filed a motion with the Court on requiring the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to submit to the Court the files of the initiated criminal case, since the lawfulness of the decree to initiate criminal proceedings could be justified by such files. The Court first noted that by his initial letter submitted to the Court, H. Yenokyan stated that the preliminary investigation into the case was carried out by the Investigation Division of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the Yerevan City Investigation Department, RA Investigative Committee, and no criminal case files were submitted. The Court attempted to find out the Prosecutor’s opinion on the motion; the latter did not oppose to it and mentioned that the criminal case was not under his procedural control and therefore, the case files were not submitted to the Court.

The Court decided to adjourn examination of A. Zalyan’s motion noting that it would consider it later.

In his appeal, the representative of A. Sakunts stated that on September 18, 2015, HCA Vanadzor filed a crime report with the RA Prosecutor General’s Office based on a hraparak.am news website publication entitled ‘Out of here, or you’ll lose your uterus!” Another incident with Sashik Sargsyan’. Later, the RA Prosecutor General’s Office decreed to initiate criminal proceedings under Article 333(1) of the RA Criminal Code.

The criminal proceedings resulted in a decree to apprehend A. Sakunts and then he was questioned on the circumstances of false crime reporting. A. Sakunts filed an application with the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to annul the decree on initiating criminal proceedings; however, the response letter stated that his application was not examined since neither the decree in question, nor any action violated his rights and legal interests. In his appeal, A. Zalyan provided grounds to the effect that initiation of criminal proceedings for false crime reporting by the RA Prosecutor General’s Office based on the actions of the person who filed the crime report and the witnesses was obviously illegal, unlawful and aimed to exert pressure on the human rights defender and the representatives of the news media, especially given that the crime reporting by the Chairman of HCA Vanadzor aimed to draw the attention of law enforcement agencies to the publication of the news website to seek legal assessment of the incident. The appeal submitted to the Court also provided grounds on the right of a person not considered a party to the criminal proceedings to appeal the decree and the unlawfulness of responding by the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to A. Sakunts by a letter.

Hence, A. Zalyan requested the Court to uphold the appeal by which A. Sakunts required to make a ruling to stop the violation of his rights and freedoms, annul the decree of H. Yenokyan, prosecutor at the Department for High-Profile Cases at the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, on initiating criminal proceedings and give a legal assessment to the criminal prosecution initiated by H. Yenokyan against the human rights defender with the status of a witness, who submitted the crime report, and to compel H. Yenokyan to provide an answer to the complaints submitted by A. Sakunts.

The presiding judge addressed the representative of A. Sakunts some questions on the claims in the appeal. At the same time, the Court found it necessary to establish whether the letter by HCA Vanadzor might be viewed as a crime report. A. Zalyan noted that the letter reproduced the contents of the media publication, as well as that the files on the incident were prepared only after the report was submitted by the Organization, whereas the media publications also constituted a crime report.

Prosecutor H. Yenokyan presented his objections to the appeal above. He noted that the requirements of the appeal did not comply with the scope of powers assigned to the court under Article 290 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, and as for the requirement to stop the violation of the rights and freedoms of A. Sakunts, H. Yenokyan mentioned that the decree to institute criminal proceedings did not violate the rights and freedoms of A. Sakunts, since the decree above contained no information violating his rights and freedoms. He also provided grounds to the effect that A. Sakunts had no right to appeal the decree on initiating criminal proceedings on the pretext that it did not concern his rights and legal interests. Hence, H. Yenokyan requested the Court to dismiss the appeal above. In response to the questions of the presiding judge, he said that it was not the letter of A. Sakunts, but rather the information in the media publication referred to therein that was considered a crime report.

The Court passed to the examination of the files attached to the appeal and then referred to A. Zalyan’s motion. Bearing in mind the prosecutor’s opinion that the necessary materials were attached to the appeal, the Court ruled to dismiss the motion.

At the same time, the Court adjourned the hearing due to the end of the working day and scheduled it for March 31, 2016, at 5 pm.

See also: hcav.am