0 8000 12 11

On August 27, 2015, the RA Court of Criminal Appeal, presided by judge V. Rshtuni, examined the appeal filed by Alexander Tsverianov’s legal representative Artur Sakunts against the decree of the General Jurisdiction Court of RA Yerevan Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts dated June 26, 2015. Note that the General Jurisdiction Court had dismissed A. Sakunts’ appeal against the decree of March 31, 2015 by V. Avetisyan, Deputy Head of the RA SIS Torture and Crimes against Humanity Investigation Department on not to initiate criminal prosecution and discontinue criminal proceedings by thus upholding the legality of the decree above.

The hearing at the RA Court of Criminal Appeal was attended by Artur Sakunts, appellant’s legal representative, Gevorg Gevorgyan, Senior Prosecutor at RA Prosecutor General’s Office High-Profile Cases Investigative Agency, who had overseen the preliminary investigation, and V. Avetisyan, Deputy Head of the RA SIS Torture and Crimes against Humanity Investigation Department, responsible for the proceedings. During the investigation of the appeal, A. Sakunts provided the facts, grounds and arguments of the appeal and stated that by its ruling, the Court of General Jurisdiction had violated Article 16 of the RA Constitution as well as Articles 17, 25, 124 and 127 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code. According to A. Sakunts, the actions by the agency responsible for preliminary investigation contained some shortcomings, and the agency failed to assess impartially the evidence collected under the proceedings. Particularly, the investigating agency took no steps to resolve the inconsistencies concerning the time of victim A. Tsverianov’s apprehension in his testimonies and those of the police officers. The criminal case files did not refute the fact that A. Tsverianov had taken some alcohol, and the data obtained are sufficient to allege that A. Tsverianov had been treated to the alcohol by police officers since at the police station he might have obtained and taken alcohol only with the help of police officers. Also, A. Tsverianov gave self-confession evidence and admitted having committed 16 robberies. However, later, the Court ruled to find him not guilty of the robberies above. A. Sakunts also mentioned that the investigating agency had failed to assign relevant expert examinations to establish whether A. Tsverianov had suffered any physical and psychological violence. In his appeal, A. Sakunts also stated that at the police station, A. Tsverianov suffered severe pains caused by his health problems for which he received lengthy treatment after his detention. The victim’s legal representative considered it a torture that A. Tsverianov suffering severe pains had no access to medical aid, and investigative actions were taken at such time. Summing up the appeal, A. Sakunts asked the Court to reverse the ruling of the General Jurisdiction Court, adopt another legal act and stop violation of victim A. Tsverianov’s rights. Presiding judge V. Rshtuni sought to find out whether the evidence obtained throughout the criminal procedure was sufficient to bring charges against the police officers in question. A. Sakunts considered such evidence sufficient and mentioned that the investigation should have proven that the victim suffered no violence, whereas in this case criminal proceedings had not refuted the fact of using violence against A. Tsverianov. The prosecutor responsible for overseeing the proceedings G. Gevorgyan and Investigator V. Avetisyan objected to the appeal above. G. Gevorgyan mentioned that the agency responsible for the preliminary investigation provided answers to all the questions and carried out the investigation in line with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, all the actions to establish the fact of violence, if any, had been taken under the criminal proceedings particularly by examining the apprehension and detention facilities records and questioning emergency medical staff. Also G. Gevorgyan added that during the preliminary criminal investigation, all the victims were questioned who had not reported theft before Tsverianov’s self-confession evidence. Referring to the RA Cassation Court’s comments on the principle of presumption of innocence in its precedential rulings, he insisted that the evidence obtained under the criminal proceedings might not serve the basis to bring charges against any police officer. V. Avetisyan, responsible for the proceedings, also objected to the A. Sakunts’ appeal stating that all the evidence provided by A. Tsverianov had been examined thoroughly, and to reveal the objective reality, disinterested persons had been identified and questioned. As for the Court verdict of acquittal, it constitutes no grounds to argue that A. Tsverianov suffered torture. Presiding judge V. Rshtuni noted that the Court had not received any preliminary investigation files yet and therefore found it necessary to adjourn the court hearing and oblige V. Avetisyan to submit to the Court the criminal case files. Hence, the hearing was adjourned till another session.