Information on the course of preliminary investigation into criminal proceedings initiated on interfering with ‘Lori’ TV editor-in-chief Narine Avetisyan’s professional journalistic activities /updated/, October 23, 2017
10:56, October 23, 2017 | News, Own news
On September 28, 2017 the lawful professional journalistic activities of journalist Narine Avetisyan, editor-in-chief of ‘Lori’ TV Company, were obstructed by use of violence on the bridge adjacent to St. Astvatsatsin Church in Vanadzor town.
On the same day, a crime report on the incident was filed with Taron Division of RA Police Vanadzor town Department and T. Tadevosyan, Investigator for High-Profile Cases at Lori Marz (Regional) Investigative Department, RA Investigative Committee, made a decision on initiating criminal proceedings under Article 164(1), RA Criminal Code.
Under the said criminal case, Narine Avetisyan was declared victim and Artur Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, and Syuzanna Soghomonyan, lawyer at the Organization, were declared victim’s representatives.
Within the preliminary investigation into the criminal case, the investigating body decided to assign a forensic medical examination and a forensic computer and technical expert examination.
On October 3, 2017 the victim’s representatives filed with the investigating body motions on taking a number of investigative actions.
Further information
Under the criminal proceedings, charges were brought against Tigran Nazaryan, Director of ‘Shinplus’ organization, and its another employee Vrezh Khachatryan, was involved in the case as a suspect.
The investigating body postponed solving the motions filed on October 3, 2017 on taking a number of investigative actions till establishing the circumstances of essential significance for the investigating body to decide on such motions.
On October 9 and 13, 2017 the victim’s representatives filed other motions on taking other investigative actions (confrontation questioning, arranging for additional questioning, forensic merchandizing expert examination, giving a legal assessment to a number of actions of the accused and taking a number of other investigative actions).
As for the motion of October 9, 2017, on October 13 the investigating body decided to reject the motion on one part, the solution of the motion was again postponed till establishing the circumstances essential for the investigating body to decide on the motion.
The investigating body also postponed consideration of the motion of October 13, 2017 till establishing the circumstances essential for the investigating body to decide on the motion.
The investigating body’s decision on partially rejecting the motion on taking investigative actions will be appealed to higher agencies.