The Appellate Court rejected the appeal by Armenian Women’s Front member Susanna Simonyan; a cassation appeal is to be filed
13:34, July 27, 2018 | News, Own news
On July 26, 2018, at a session where A. Sargyan and A. Poghosyan were present, the RA Administrative Court of Appeal presided by K. Mkoyan rejected the appeal on the case of Armenian Women’s Front member Susanna Simonyan and left the judgment rendered by the RA Administrative Court on April 6, 2017 unchanged.
S. Simonyan and her representative T. Siradeghyan, lawyer at HCA Vanadzor’s representative office in Yerevan, appealed the decision rendered by the RA Administrative Court of April 6, 2017. Under that decision, by the demand of the RA Police, a fine in the amount of 30,000 AMD was imposed on S. Simonyan, and the counter-claim on declaring the police actions unlawful was upheld in part. The Court declared unlawful the RA Police actions of using physical force and rejected the demands to declare unlawful the actions of arresting S. Simonyan, failing to introduce themselves when arresting her, insulting her and filming her without her permission.
It should be recalled that Susanna Simonyan was a participant in the assembly that was held on June 22, 2018, during the discussion on choosing detention as a preventive measure against Zh. Sefilyan. The police officers took her to the police station by force and then demanded to subject her to liability under Article 172.3 of the RA Code on Administrative Offenses for insulting a police officer (spitting on a police officer).
Under the decision delivered yesterday, the RA Administrative Court of Appeal found groundless the appellant’s argument on spitting not constituting an insult, as the mentioned action fully corresponds to the concept of the term “insult.” According to the Court, S. Simonyan unarguably manifested the behavior of spitting on a police officer; that behavior was directed towards a specific person, a police officer, and constituted degrading behavior that contradicts the general norms of conduct formed in society and is perceived negatively by society.
Addressing the demand to declare unlawful the actions of arresting S. Simonyan, the RA Administrative Court of Appeal mentioned that it becomes clear from the records on the arrest that the administrative arrest was also carried out under Article 182 of the RA Code on Administrative Offenses; therefore, the police actions with this regard are lawful, as carrying out an administrative arrest on the ground of non-compliance with the demand of a police officer is in the scope of the authority of the police.
As regards the actions of filming S. Simonyan, the RA Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that patrol officers are endowed with the authority to conduct an observation with a camera while performing their service; therefore, in this case, filming when performing official duties cannot be viewed as an action contradicting the fundamental provisions of the Constitution.
S. Simonyan and her representative T. Siradeghyan are going to appeal the decision of the Appellate Court before the RA Court of Cassation.