0 8000 12 11

On May 18, 2015, the RA Administrative Court, presided by H. Ayvazyan, held the administrative trial of the claim by the RA Police against Taron Siradeghyan on administrative responsibility under Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences, and on the counter-claim of Taron Siradeghyan against the RA Police on considering the police actions unlawful. Note that on June 23 of the previous year, Taron Siradeghyan was arrested during the protest against the increased electricity prices and apprehended to the RA Police Yerevan Kentron Police Department, where the police officers drew up a an administrative record on his failure to comply with the legal requirements of the police and breaking the police cordon. The court hearing of May 18, 2015, was attended by Aida Demirkhanyan, representative of the plaintiff RA Police, and the defendant and counter-plaintiff Taron Siradeghyan and his representative, HCA Vanadzor lawyer Tatevik Siradeghyan. The RA Police representative A. Demirkhanyan submitted to the Court an extract from the RA Police Yerevan Kentron Department registry book dated June 23, 2014, with the time of arresting and discharging Taron Siradeghyan which failed to comply with the time in the counter-claim. In response to the questions of the presiding judge, A. Demirkhanyan stated that the registry book recorded the time of arrest filled in compliance with relevant report, and yet the amendments were made by the officers on duty. The Court obliged the plaintiff’s representative to submit the procedure for filling in the registry book. The defendant’s representative noted that she would express her position on attaching the document in question to the case upon familiarizing herself with the procedure above. In her opening address, the plaintiff’s representative presented the regulations enshrined in various legal acts serving as the basis for the claim. In particular, she presented the powers of the police during assemblies and maintenance of public order, as well as the duties of the pedestrians in traffic, also with reference to the rights to arrest persons to prevent any potential offense, the binding force of legal requirements and provisions for imposing liability for non-compliance. In response to the question of the defendant’s representative, A. Demirkhanyan said that the defendant had been arrested for the action under Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences. When asked whether such grounds had been provided to the defendant, the RA Police representative said that all of the persons were familiarized with the grounds and naturally enough the Police was unable to provide complete grounds. Yet, she found it hard to specify who exactly provided the grounds and assumed that it might have been the person responsible for drafting the relevant report or his fellow officer. Defendant’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan presented her objections against the claim by substantiating the lack of any administrative offense. Particularly, she noted that according to the claim above, Taron Siradeghyan was not obliged to comply with the requirement imposed on H. Shahparonyan, and also neither Taron Siradeghyan, nor any other protest participant received any particular requirements. The defendant’s representative also noted that even if they admitted the alleged fact of voicing a requirement, the Police should provide enough evidence that Taron Siradeghyan failed to comply with legal requirements. The objection also stated that while the arrest record mentioned the failure of Taron Siradeghyan to comply with the lawful demands of the police, breaking the police cordon, obstructing the traffic and movement of pedestrians, as provided in the report, the relevant officials failed to obtain any other possible evidence of the guilt or innocence of the person in question, despite their responsibility to timely, complete, comprehensive and objective determination of all the facts of each administrative case. The plaintiff’s representative A. Demirkhanyan provided a complete objection to the substance behind the objection of Tatevik Siradeghyan and stated that the note on imposing a requirement to Mr. Shahparonyan was an error and it did not mean that no requirement had been imposed on Taron Siradeghyan. She also mentioned that when imposing any requirements, the police officers cannot address a person by his/her name and surname as their identity had not been determined yet. As for the action in the administrative record, the plaintiff’s representative noted that approaching the Public Services Regulatory Commission building by passing through the yards of the buildings also constituted breaking the police cordon. During the questions of the Court and the defendant party, it was admitted however that Taron Siradeghyan bypassed rather than broke the police cordon. At the same time, the plaintiff failed to indicate the exact sectors where a legal requirement was imposed on Taron Siradeghyan and where he was arrested. Then, the defendant and counter-plaintiff Taron Siradeghyan’s representative filed the counterclaim. First she introduced the factual grounds of the counterclaim and then the legal grounds and the rationale. In particular, the counterclaim plaintiff’s representative mentioned that the actions of the RA police officers and RA police troops violated the counter-plaintiff’s right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and right to liberty and security of person as enshrined both in the RA Constitution and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The counterclaim also contained grounds on illegal restriction of the right to freedom of assembly by the RA Police as well as its failure to perform its duties during the assembly, using force against the participants of the assembly, violating the procedures for use of force, illegal arrest and keeping the counter-plaintiff at the RA Police Yerevan Kentron Department longer than provided by law. The grounds behind the illegal arrest were based on the fact that no demands were imposed on Taron Siradeghyan during the assembly and therefore, he was under no obligation to fulfill any requirement. The counterclaim defendant’s representative A. Demirkhanyan noted that she objected to the counterclaim and the written response was submitted to the Court on that account. The opening addresses of the Parties were followed by a discussion of the issues related to viewing the videos and summoning the police officer responsible for the report as a witness. A. Demirkhanyan found it necessary first to view the videos provided by the both parties to the trial and then to discuss the necessity to summon and question the police officer above as a witness. Taron Siradeghyan’s representative made no objections. To ensure the provision of relevant video sections to the Court and the technical equipment, the Court found it necessary to hold another trial. Thus, the court hearing was adjourned and scheduled for June 12, 2015, at 2:30 pm.