0 8000 12 11

On November 30, 2015, the RA Court of Criminal Appeals, presided by S. Chichoyan, examined Hayk Kyureghyan’s appeal. The court hearing was attended by defendant H. Kyureghyan and Vahe Asatryan, Prosecutor at Prosecutor’s Office of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts. The aggrieved party and H. Kyureghyan’s attorney Anzhelya Hobosyan did not attend the court hearing. Note that H. Kyureghyan attended the court hearing with the motto ‘Viva Armenia of tomorrow!’
The parties to the trial did not file any challenge motions on the Court composition. The Court tried to find out whether H. Kyureghyan considered it necessary that his attorney attended the hearing. In answer to this question, H. Kyureghyan noted that he had many times and even with a written application rejected the services of the Public Defender since he did not consider the Court a legal system and therefore saw no necessity of legal defense.
In response to Court’s question whether the parties had any motions before the beginning of the trial, H. Kyureghyan noted that he motioned to amend the essence of the charges brought against him since, according to him, it had no legal wording. The Court noted that H. Kyureghyan might address such issues within the grounds and reasons of the appeal, and since there were no motions, the Court passed to examination of the appeal. The Court announced the essence of the judgment and the appeal and then gave the floor to appellant H. Kyureghyan to introduce the grounds and reasons of the appeal. The latter noted that he considered the text of the appeal illiterate as it mentioned that he had climbed up the car to show his superiority over the public and then asked to specify whether he was charged with violating the public order or showing his superiority over the public.
Presiding judge S. Chichoyan noted that H. Kyureghyan filed quite a literate appeal and asked whether he would like to present it. In response to the question, H. Kyureghyan said that he would focus on the basic points of his appeal and noted that by his behavior he only attempted to give an adequate response to the situation and regardless of whether courts would acquit him or not, the people had already acquitted him. Once again, H. Kyureghyan noted that he did not consider the judicial system legal and found it unnecessary to talk about the legal reasoning of the appeal.
In response to presiding judge S. Chichoyan’s observation that in his appeal H. Kyureghyan also touched upon the severity of the sentence and failed to do so in the claim part of the appeal, H. Kyureghyan replied that his only claim was that for his acquittal. Prosecutor V. Asatryan considered the court judgment legitimate and well-grounded and found the imposed sentence quite reasonable as it aimed to restore the social justice. Therefore, he asked the Court to dismiss the appeal. In response to the Court’s question on whether the Parties had any motion to provide additional evidence, H. Kyureghyan noted that the lower court had not provided him with the video records, and the necessity to provide new evidence depended on such records. Nevertheless, the Court noted that H. Kyureghyan had no motion on new evidence and then considered the examination of the appeal completed and left to the retiring room.
By its ruling announced shortly after, the Court dismissed H. Kyureghyan’s appeal. Also, it is noteworthy that despite the fact that at the beginning of the trial, presiding judge S. Chichoyan explained the procedure that a party to the trial should stand up every time addressing the Court, H. Kyureghyan never stood up during the trial. In these terms, the Court applied no procedural sanctions against H. Kyureghyan.