Sakunts can’t visit Nikol
00:00, December 16, 2010 | News | Detention Facilities, Political Prisoners
“The recent statement issued by the Penitentiary Department of the RA Ministry of Justice is a very weak attempt to deny the charges that Nikol Pashinyan and his attorney have presented,” says President of the “Helsinki Civil Assembly Office in Vanadzor” NGO Artur Sakunts.
The Penitentiary Department had issued a statement in which it stated that the facts presented by prisoner at the “Artik” penitentiary of the RA Ministry of Justice Nikol Pashinyan don’t correspond to reality.
After talking to Pashinyan’s attorney in person, Artur Sakunts came to the conclusion that Nikol Pashinyan’s right to an attorney has been violated. “An attorney should be able to freely meet with his client without the presence of a third person. But the fact that even if the penitentiary employee was standing on the other side of the door and the door was left open goes to show that the principle of confidentiality has been violated.”
In the official statement, the penitentiary department denies the fact that Nikol Pashinyan’s right to epistolary has been violated, but Artur Sakunts doesn’t agree. “There was no reasonable, logical corroboration stating that the penitentiary department truly ensures Nikol Pashinyan’s right to outside contact. What’s more, there are more doubts regarding the violation of that right,” Sakunts told “A1+”.
The advocate, who is also president of the group of public observers implementing public control at the Ministry of Justice, has not had an opportunity to visit Nikol Pashinyan since November 18.
“We have had certificates to visit. There is a group, but there are no certificates because there had to be an order from the minister in relation to membership and the certificates had to be granted based on that order,” said Sakunts.
The group has appealed to the penitentiary department head and is waiting for a response. Until then, the group has presented an urgent report on assaults and traces of blood on Nikol Pashinyan’s clothes and other accessories seen during the previous visits.
“They have already replied that that doesn’t correspond to reality. But we find that they had to present the results of the examination as well. How corroborated and objective were they? The facts are called into question more than they are denied,” says Sakunts.