0 8000 12 11

As reported before, on May 20, 2016, the RA Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal against the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, submitted by Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at HCA Vanadzor Office in Yerevan and representative of Karen Kyupelyan detained illegally for almost a day at the administrative premises of NSS.

Note that on November 1, 2007, at about 6 pm, K. Kyupelyan was apprehended by his vehicle from Zvartnots airport by E. N., H. M. and one more officer of the RA NSS to the administrative premises of the RA NSS where he was transferred at about 7 p.m. Upon being transferred to the administrative premises of the RA NSS, K. Kyupelyan was kept there for almost a day till November 2, 2007, at about 5 pm. Under the criminal proceedings initiated on the incident, charges were brought to H.M., an officer of the RA NSS, and as for E. N. and T. A., a decision on initiating no criminal prosecution was made, which was later appealed first to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office and then to the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts of Yerevan, RA. Upon examining the appeal of T. Siradeghyan, representative of K. Kyupelyan, on annulling the decision of RA SIS Senior Investigator for High-Profile Cases A. Ohanyan’s decree of October 19, 2015 on not initiating criminal prosecution, the Court dismissed it on March 23, 2016.   

The RA Court of Criminal Appeals ruling of May 20, 2016 was appealed to the Court of Cassation. The appeal on the points of law stated that investigator A. Ohanyan’s decision and the court ruling were not well-grounded and contradicted the evidence obtained during the preliminary investigation and addressed questions to the RA Court of Cassation on whether victim K. Kyupelyan’s testimonies might be considered as non-credible by the investigating agency only on the grounds that he was an interested party in the case and whether during the preliminary investigation, all the possible actions were taken to ensure the full, comprehensive and objective investigation into the case.

According to the aggrieved party’s observation, the failure to consider the data provided by Karen Kyupelyan as credible in itself deviates the investigation into the case from its aim, since it should have aimed to ensure real protection and restoration of the violated rights of the victim. Besides, Karen Kyupelyan was involved as victim only 2.5 months after the criminal proceedings were initiated (in fact, at the end of the preliminary investigation).

In the appeal on the points of law, victim’s representative, T. Siradeghyan, lawyer at HCA Vanadzor Office in Yerevan, held a position that the investigating agency failed to take all the possible actions during the preliminary investigation to obtain the necessary evidence under the case and therefore, the claims on exhausted opportunities for obtaining new evidence were groundless.