0 8000 12 11

On October 6, 2017 the RA Administrative Court questioned the police officers involved as witnesses in protestor Vahram Petrosyan’s case.

Note that the RA Police demands to hold V. Petrosyan liable under Article 180.1(11 and 15), RA Code of Administrative Offenses. And V. Petrosyan and his representative T. Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan office of HCA Vanadzor, demand by a counter-claim to find unlawful the RA Police actions of dispersing the assembly, arresting him and using physical force.

The court hearing was attended by representative of plaintiff and counter-defendant RA Police Sona Melikyan, Legal Adviser to Kentron Division of RA Police Yerevan city Department, defendant and counter-plaintiff Vahram Petrosyan and his representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan office of HCA Vanadzor.

At the court hearing, the court questioned RA Police guard and patrol service regiment officers Edgar Rshtuni and Gagik Avagyan.

In his testimony, E. Rshtuni noted that on March 24, 2016 they were instructed by radio communication to go to the assembly venue in Mashtots Avenue. He mentioned that he remembered V. Petrosyan and personally ordered him to leave the traffic section of the street. The witness said that during the assembly he gave participants both general and individual orders. He did not recall any details on V. Petrosyan’s apprehension but noted that it was the only demand to the assembly participants. E. Rshtuni could not recall the details of the other persons mentioned in his report.

G. Avagyan, another Police guard and patrol service regiment officer, mentioned in his testimony that he could not recall the details; he only recalled that as we was coming to the assembly venue he heard E. Rshtuni shouting at the assembly participants to leave the street. He noted that he personally did not see the moment an order was given to the defendant and he did not arrest anybody.

After the witnesses gave testimony, the defendant’s representative motioned to involve 2 other persons as witnesses on the case. She mentioned that at the moment of giving the alleged order, there were 2 other assembly participants near V. Petrosyan and could testify on whether an order was given or not. The plaintiff party objected to the motion. The court decided to reject the motion considering sufficient the evidence available in the case.

The court passed to the stage of court disputes. Summing up the course of the proceedings, the representative of the RA Police asked to grant the claim and reject the counter-claim. In his turn, V. Petrosyan’s representative asked to completely reject the claim of the RA Police and fully grant the counter-claim.

The Court considered examination of the case completed. The judicial act will be announced on October 27, 2017, at 5:30 pm.