0 8000 12 11

On October 31, 2014 RA Court of Criminal Appeal held Hayk Movsisyan’s case hearing. We have referred to the criminal case on Hayk Movsisyan’s death for many times, which was quashed by the investigation bodies considering his death as a suicide case on the bases of evidence insufficiency but Hayk Movsisyan was not recognized as a victim and his mother Heghine Petrosyan was not recognized a successor as a result of which Hayk Movsisyan’s rights have been violated.

It is necessary to remember that on September 9, 2014, M. Martirosyan a judge of RA Kentron Nork-Marash District First Instance Court groundlessly rejected H. Petrosyan’s representative HCA Vanadzor’s head of legal unit A. Zalinyan’s motion to provide the preliminary investigation materials of the case, and the judge thus, has rejected the request to recognize H. Movsisyan as a victim by his decision.

During the hearing in the RA Court of Criminal Appeal on October 31, 2014 it became known that the presiding judge M. Petrosyan requested the investigating body to present the materials of the dismissed case on his own initiative. However, as a response to the inquiry of the court both RA Prosecution and RA Special Investigation Services once again rejected to provide the materials stating that those had been presented to the First Instance Court.

1. Petrosyan’s representative A. Zalinyan motioned the Court to oblige the investigating body to provide all the materials of the dismissed case. After discussing the motion and hearing the position of the plaintiff’s representative the Court granted the motion and guided by request of part 4 of Article 290 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure as well as considering the objectivity, completeness and the multifaceted nature of the examination postponed the appeal to receive the materials of the dismissed case.

Meanwhile, H. Petrosyan’s representatives A. Zalinyan and A. Sakunts sent an inquiry to the RA Justice Committee to apply disciplinary sanctions on Kentron Nork-Marash District First Instance Court judge M. Martirosyan based on the violations (the inquiry attached) but the General Assembly of Judges Ethics and Disciplinary Committee decided that “Judge M. Martirosyan did not significantly violate procedural norms or performed indisputable violations” (see the response). Thus, the First Instance Judge does not grant the motion and makes a rejection decision without complete information about the case and the Appeal court judge finds that without the materials hearing could not be objective, multifaceted and complete and has granted a motion but The General Assembly of Judicial Ethics and Disciplinary Committee finds that the judge of First Instance Court M. Martirosyan performed no violations.