0 8000 12 11

On May 22, 2014, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, commenced proceedings of the joint appeal of A. Sakunts, Chairman of the HCA Vanadzor and Heghine Makaryan on reversing the decree dated March 3, 2014 by H. R. Harutyunyan, acting investigator at Department of Cases of Particular Importance, RA Special Investigation Service and forwarding the case for preliminary investigation.

This appeal challenged the decree on dismissing instigation of criminal case on forcibly removing by police officers of Ashot Khudoyan, Heghine Makaryan and their minor children, sit-inners near the RA Presidential Palace on December 2, 2013 as well as illegal entry into their apartment and crime report of disappearance of a cell phone and a sum of 20,000 AMD. Note that on December 2, 2013, the Khudoyan family were removed in different cars from the territory in front of the Presidential Residence at about 6:15 due to the official visit of the President of Russian Federation, V. Putin. Afterwards, the family were kept under the control of the police officers for about a day.

A. Shahbazyan, departmental prosecutor of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, attended the trial. As for the RA Special Investigation Service, it submitted a notification stating that H. R. Harutyunyan responsible for the proceedings was discharged from office, and the SIS was unable to provide presence of any other representative due to heavy workload. The Court found that the absence of the authority responsible for the proceedings did not hinder consideration of the appeal in any way as the supervising prosecutor attended the trial.

At the hearing, Tatevik Siradeghyan, the lawyer of HCA Vanadzor mission in Yerevan, who also represented Heghine Makaryan, submitted the appeal pinpointing strong grounds on improper investigation of the case by the responsible authority and a number of circumstances that received no legal assessment during the pretrial proceeding of the case.

Prosecutor A. Shahbazyan filed objections stating that on November 28 of the past year, the sit-inners Ashot Khudoyan and Heghine Makaryan agreed to leave the place for a day and asked the police officers to give them a lift to Vagharshapat city due to lack of money. According to Shahbazyan, relevant materials came to prove the Khudoyan family did not suffer violence, and there was no need to watch the video referred to by the applicants since the forensic examination showed no possibility to determine the exact date when Ashot Khudoyan received his injuries.

A. Shahbazyan also stated that A. Khudoyan’s cell phone had been retrieved and returned to the owner. As for the 20,000 AMD, no criminal proceedings could be instigated to this effect. He said that the Khudoyans could duly apply to law-enforcement authorities if they suspected of any theft.

The supervising prosecutor A. Shahbazyan also referred to the issue of illegal entry into Khudoyans’ apartment and stated that this circumstance was not mentioned in the case, and Khudoyans’ neighbors had testified that they enjoyed freedom of movement.

The explanatory notes by police officials enclosed to the decree to dismiss the instigation of the criminal case also provide data on considering the mentioned territory as security zone within the period mentioned as well as notification from the Vagharshapat police station on Ashot Khudoyan’s intention to inflict self-harm and burn alive his wife and children.

In reply to applicants’ questions on violence against the Khudoyans, the prosecutor A. Shahbazyan answered that they had not referred to those questions since they could judge on the extent to which violent acts were lawful only if such acts had been virtually committed.

The appeal also included statements on inaction of the Prosecutor General’s Office, particularly failure to consider the appeal by the HCA Vanadzor against the decree to dismiss the instigation of criminal case since it did not touch upon the rights and interests of A. Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor.

A. Shahbazyan, departmental prosecutor of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office also stated in his objections that the crime report by the organization had been viewed as an alert that was later substantiated by a crime report by Heghine Makaryan.

Throughout the court hearing, the representative of the General Prosecutor’s Office filed objections to convince the court that due to being sleepy, the Khudoyans had forgotten their 8-month-old son at the sit-in site and had deliberately left there all their belongings, including their shoes as they had stated their intention to return the following day.

Thereupon, the court hearing was delayed since A. Shahbazyan needed some time to review relevant materials, and the applicants filed a motion to receive case materials. The next hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m., June 3, 2014.