0 8000 12 11

On June 7, 2011 Lori Region Court of First Instance continued to hear Lernapat village Mayor Vano Eghiazaryan’s claim against Lernapat village resident Kamsar Tamaryan regarding a compensation for the damage caused to his prestige, dignity and business reputation. 

The court trial, presided by Judge Varduhi Hovnanyan, was attended by plaintiff Vano Eghiazaryan, responding party Kamsar Tamaryan and Artur Sakunts, representative of the responding party. Lernapat village Mayor Vano Eghiazaryan had submitted a claim to the Court with regard to the article published in September 1, 2010 issue of “Zhamanak” Daily, which he viewed as slander on the part of villagers.

Vano Eghiazaryan qualifies statements like “he has ruined this village”, “someone has even died of hunger in our village”, “two sisters of the village Mayor and head of the staff Mher Malkhasyan have had Hermine Harutyunyan fake about her husband being employed” and other statements made by Kamsar Tamaryan as slander.

Lernapat village resident Artyom Markosyan’s words were taken as basis for “two sisters of the village Mayor and head of the staff Mher Malkhasyan have had Hermine Harutyunyan fake about her husband being employed” statement made by Kamsar Tamaryan. Artyom’s wife Hermine Harutyunyan applied to the Lernapat municipality in order to receive a family benefit and noted in her written statement that she inhabited in a temporary dwelling and only her husband was employed. Artyom Markosyan’s wife told her husband that she was told to fake the information at the village municipality.

During the court trial four eyewitnesses including Artyom Markosyan, his wife Hermine Harutyunyan, Marieta Eghiazaryan and Mher Malkhasyan, head of the staff of Lernapat village municipality, were invited to the court room, but Mher Malkhasyan as well as Hermine Harutyunyan did not attend the trial, because as her husband stated, the latter had 2 children /2 and 3- year old / and a bed-ridden disabled mother-in-law under her direct care.

Vano Eghiazaryan stated, “Mher Malkhasyan is in bad health, I attempted to convince him to come, but he rejected”. During the trial Vano Eghiazaryan submitted a motion to invite Ruzanna Eghiazaryan as a witness, who was present at the time Hermine Harutyunyan was writing her statement at the village municipality.

Artyom Markosyan was the first to be invited into the court room. As he stated in the court, his wife informed him she had been told to write that her husband was employed by the village municipality employees when she went to apply for the family benefit. Whereas, Artyom Markosyan was unemployed, so he notified Kamsar Tamaryan about it. According to Markosyan, his wife did not know the identity of the employees but he could figure out from her words that Mher Malkhasyan and Ruzan and Marieta, the village Mayor’s sisters, told her to write that he was “employed as shepherd”. In Artyom Markosyan’s opinion, his wife did not realize that it would affect the family benefit plan. He also noted that the job of a shepherd was not permanent. It was a give-and-take job: someone paid and the other provided dairy.

Markosyan added, “I have been a shepherd for 11 years and I have received my family benefit, but the village Mayor has been revenging Kamsar since the rise of the struggle between the villagers and the Mayor and because I am a close friend Kamsar, he decided to do me harm.”

The next witness to be invited into the court room was Marieta Eghiazaryan, Vano Eghazaryan’s sister. She stated that she was having her break when Hermine Harutyunyan was filling out the documents and was unaware of everything by adding that her cousin Ruzanna Eghiazaryan was present in the office during the break because she lived nearby. When Marieta Eghiazaryan’s refereed to Ruzanna Eghiazaryan as their cousin, Vano Eghiazaryan intervened and denied the fact, so the witness “corrected” herself stating that “she was her uncle’s granddaughter.”

The court satisfied Vano Eghiazaryan’s motion and invited Ruzanna Eghiazaryan as a witness who presented herself as Vano Eghazaryan’s distant relative. She stated in the court that since it was a break time, she wanted to go home, but when Hermine came, she gave her a sheet of paper and a pen, and let her sit and fill out the documents by herself. She also added that she had not been tasked to dictate Hermine the statement or write it herself.

While responding to the questions posed by the responding party representative Artur Sakunts, she noted that she had been working in the village municipality as a cashier for 11 years, and did not deal with the family benefit related documents, but simply helped people, because most of the villagers were illiterate. She stated she did not know who accepted Hermine Harutyunyan’s documents and was not even aware that Hermine Harutyunyan did not receive a family benefit after that. “Hermine’s husband came to me the next day and asked why I had told her to write that he had a job, but I replied I had not said or forced anything adding that she wrote everything on her own”, noted Ruzanna Eghiazaryan. To Artur Sakunts’ question if it was the first time she helped Hermine Harutyunyan, R. Eghiazaryan replied “no” and to the question how she could explain the fact that previously when she helped her, they received the family benefit, but this time they failed to receive it, the eyewitness hesitated to give a reply.

Sakunts declared that it was not the first time Hermine Harutyunyan received help with the paperwork. In the name of the witness, the plaintiff party affirmed his statement. The responding party objected, “In this particular case an apparent intervention of the responding party occurs during the question & answer of the witness, which obviously has an orientation effect on the testimonies given by the eyewitnesses. I claim that the Court apply a disciplinary measure against the responding party.” Hereby, The Court decided to apply a judicial sanction in the form of a warning. At the end of the court session, the issue of re-inviting the missing eyewitnesses to the next court session was raised. Vano Eghiazaryan noted it was obvious from the given testimonies that nobody was dictated anything. And in case the court considered it necessary to invite more witnesses, he offered to include Mher Malkhasyan, because he had some health issues and was unwilling to participate in the court trial.   

Artur Sakunts noted that Vano Eghiazaryan considered the statement “two sisters of the village Mayor and head of the staff Mher Malkhasyan have had Hermine Harutyunyan fake about her husband being employed” made by Kamsar Tamaryan as slander in his claim and added that the presence of the aforementioned person is crucial for the revelation of the slander facts. The village Mayor’s statement that Mher Malkhasyan would not attend the trial was a challenge to the Court. That is why he submitted a motion to interrogate Malkhasyan as an eyewitness. “I propose a motion to interrogate Hermine Harutyunyan as well, since she had her direct participation and we only try to picture the situation based on extraneous data”, said Artur Sakunts. 

The court reached a resolution to consider Mher Malkhasyan’s absence unjustified and made a decision to forcefully bring him to the next court trial, while Hermine Harutyunyan’s absence was considered acceptable and the court took a decision to send her a notification to invite her to the court as an eyewitness.

The court trial was put off until 12:00 p.m. of July 19, 2011.