0 8000 12 11

Today, on July 30, 2018, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Lori Region continued the examination of the case on hindering Lori TV editor-in-chief Narine Avetisyan’s professional journalistic activity.

It should be recalled that the incident occurred on the bridge adjacent to the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Vanadzor on September 28, 2017, when Narine Avetisyan attempted to shoot the asphalt paving works that were being conducted in the pouring rain.

A charge was brought against V. Khachatryan and T. Nazaryan for committing an act under Article 164 § 1 of the RA Criminal Code (Hindrance to the legal professional activities of a journalist).

During the previous court session, HCA Vanadzor Chairman Artur Sakunts and advocate at the Organization Syuzanna Soghomonyan, who are N. Avetisyan’s representatives, announced about their wish to submit a request for recusal of the judge after the latter, at the request of the defendant, prohibited the 5 journalists present at the Court to shoot the session for longer than 5 minutes.

Likewise, at today’s court, which again commenced late because of the defendants, the defendants expressed such a wish again; yet, the Court demanded not to shoot only the defendants while covering the court session. As to the court session overall, the judge allowed to shoot it.

In the given context, the Court clarified the wish of the aggrieved party to submit a request for recusal of the judge. N. Avetisyan’s representative S. Soghomonyan insisted on the motion and filed it. Prosecuting Attorney G. Manukyan objected to the motion and expressed the view that it should be rejected.

The Court retired to the deliberation room to make a decision and nearly an hour later rejected the motion by the delivered decision.

After the clarification of the defendants’ identities, besides G. Galikyan, advocate A. Ghazaryan was also involved as Tigran Nazaryan’s defender. V. Khachatryan, the other defendant, did not express the wish to have a defender.

Before proceeding with the trial, N. Avetisyan’s representative S. Soghomonyan filed a motion for the aggrieved party to hand over her mobile phone, which is considered as material evidence. The parties did not object, and the Court ruled to uphold the motion and to give N. Avetisyan’s mobile phone to her on the condition of submitting it to the Court at the request of the Court if needed.

The Court proceeded with the trial, and the Prosecutor presented the accusation. The defendants pleaded not guilty.

Then, the procedure for examining the evidence was established, and the next court session was scheduled for 2.30 pm on October 2, 2018.