Police demands to prosecute protesters for obstructing the normal course of the assembly, but provides no relevant records
18:16, June 7, 2017 | News, Own news | Freedom of Assembly and Association, Freedom of Information and Speech, Freedom of Movement, Right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Right to liberty and security
On June 6, 2017 the RA Administrative Court resumed examination of the claim by the Police against protester Hasmik Evoyan and the counter-claim on declaring the police actions unlawful.
Hasmik Evoyan attended the assembly held in March 2016, before the examination of the motion on extending Gevorg Safaryan’s detention. The RA Police demanded to impose on her administrative sanctions under Article 180.1(11 and 15) of the RA Code of Administrative Offenses for failure to fulfill by assembly participant of his/her duties and the police orders prescribed by law.
At the court hearing, representative of the RA Police Sona Melikyan and H. Evoyan’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan office of HCA Vanadzor, made opening speeches.
The RA Police representative said that the participants of the assembly of March 24, 2016 blocked Mashtots Avenue all along and some of them chained themselves to the asphalt and lay down, sat or stood on the traffic section of the street in violation of the normal course of the assembly. The assembly participants did not obey the police order to comply with the normal course of the assembly and leave the traffic section of the street and then the police officers arrested them and took them to police station.
In response to the questions of the defendant’s representative, she said that the above orders were delivered to the assembly participants from the very start.
And she objected to H. Evoyan’s representative’s claim on partial suspension of the proceedings by noting that the records filed to the case also refer to the offence under Article 180.1(11) of the RA Code of Administrative Offences.
Then T. Siradeghyan countered that the relevant note in the records made part of the claim and was not found in the description of the nature of the offence.
Note that T. Siradeghyan motioned to partially suspend the proceedings as the records concerned only the failure to obey the legal order of the police and there were no records on obstructing the normal course of the assembly.
The Court will express its position on the motion in a judicial act on the merits of the case.
Then T. Siradeghyan presented her objections to the RA Police claim noting that H. Evoyan’s actions had no features of the actions attributed to her. She also referred to the counter-claim providing grounds on violation of H. Evoyan’s rights and freedoms.
The Court passed to examination of the evidence.
The defendant’s representative asked some questions about the explanations sought under the proceedings and the status of the police officers who provided such explanations. At the hearing, the Court also examined the video submitted by the defendant party and then the parties expressed their positions.
For technical reasons it was impossible to listen to the video recording, and the Court ruled to postpone the hearing to ensure availability of technical devices necessary for proper examination of the video.
Further information on the date and time of the hearing will be provided.