Human rights activist Marina Poghosyan faced illegal investigation and search actions
12:17, September 5, 2017 | News, Own news
On September 11, 2015 the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts sanctioned in gross violation of law provisions conducting ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action against human rights activist Marina Poghosyan.
‘Internal watch’ is a type of investigation and search actions through which law enforcement representatives follow the person, watch his/her activity in his/her apartment and record the findings. This can be done with and without special technical devices.
Moreover, according to the RA Law on Investigation and Search Actions, investigation and search activities may be taken only when a person is suspected of committing a grave or extremely grave crime, and it is impossible to get the necessary information through any other way.
Whereas, Marina Poghosyan was not involved as a suspect in the criminal case initiated under Article 178(3)(1) (committing extremely large-scale fraud), RA Criminal Code as of August 17, 2015. And some days after the decision to take ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action, on September 14, 2015 she was questioned as a witness and about a month later, on October 19, 2015 L. Yolchyan, investigator at the Investigation Division of Arabkir Administrative District, RA Investigative Committee, decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings due to lack of elements of crime.
On July 28, 2016 the discontinued criminal proceedings were reopened and Marina Poghosyan was involved as an accused.
In response to Marina Poghosyan’s inquiry of August 17, 2016 on taking ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action against her, A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, answered in his letter of August 26, 2016 that in the period of January 1, 2014 – August 26, 2016, no investigation and search action was taken; in other words, he provided obviously false information.
However, according to the court ruling, ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action must be taken within a 5-day period; this means that it might not be postponed and must have been taken back in September 2015.
Marina Poghosyan learnt about the action taken against her no sooner than in August, 2017, during the trial examination of the criminal case initiated against her illegally.
On July 17, 2017 HCA Vanadzor filed a relevant crime report with the RA Prosecutor General’s Office.
Instead of making a decision based on the crime report, the RA Prosecutor General’s Office sent it to the Internal Security Department of the RA Police without informing the Organization.
On August 15, 2017 HCA Vanadzor got a letter signed by A. Hakobyan, Colonel of Police and Head of the Internal Security Department of the RA Police, commenting on the reasons why in response to Marina Poghosyan’s inquiry of August 17, 2016, A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, answered in his letter of August 26, 2016 that no investigation and search action was taken against her.
According to A. Hakobyan, the answer concerned only one of the RA Police units, and the General Department for Criminal Intelligence of the RA Police does not keep record of any other units.
It should be noted that the response letter of A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, of August 26, 2016 does not mention any particular unit but rather the “RA Police Units”. Therefore, A. Hakobyan’s statement is groundless.
As for the suspect status, Colonel of Police A. Hakobyan believes that the concepts of “suspect” and “is suspected” are not the same. And he also considers lawful taking ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action against Marina Poghosyan in her status of witness.
On August 22, 2017 HCA Vanadzor applied on this issue to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office for the second time and expressed its position that the RA Police is not the institution to respond to the inquiry addressed to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office and demanded to provide the decision based on the report. The RA Prosecutor General’s Office has not answered yet.