0 8000 12 11

On July 23, 2018, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Lori Region presided by Suren Baghdasaryan adjourned the discussion of the motion to release from detention Hovik Matinyan, who is accused of robbery only on the basis of the victim’s testimony.

The motion was filed by defender Arshak Mkoyan and HCA Vanadzor advocate Ani Chatinyan, who was involved in this court session as a defender.

In October 2017, H. Matinyan, who had arrived in Gyulagarak Village from the RF as a guest, was accused by A. Matinyan, another resident of the village, of stealing gold jewelry of 700,000 AMD in value. Incidentally, at first, he described the thief differently and then changed his testimony, providing the argument that he was confused on the day of the robbery.

Besides the victim’s testimony, there is no evidence in the criminal case to prove Hovik Matinyan’s guilt. The defendant and his relatives maintain that he was unjustly accused of robbery.

Filing a charge against a person on the basis of one testimony contradicts the precedential rulings of the RA Court of Cassation and the European Court of Human Rights.

At the court session held yesterday, the Court once again failed to ensure the presence of witness Jemik Matinyan, who is the victim’s mother and has not showed up at the Court for a few times already. At the prerceding court session, Judge Suren Baghdasaryan ruled an enforced appearance of the witness, but, as it turned out, the law-enforcement agencies failed to ensure the execution of the ruling. The Court had information that she was unwell, and it was impossible to bring her to the Court without her daughter’s presence. As to the daughter, she is not in the Republic of Armenia.

In view of the created situation, the Court suggested publicizing and examining the witness’ pre-investigation testimony. The defense did not object, mentioning that the pre-investigation testimony lacked significant circumstances affecting the outcome of the case, and that they did not see any need to hear her in the Court. However, A. Poghosyan, who substituted Prosecuting Attorney G. Safaryan, objected to the suggestion. He considered it compulsory to hear the victim’s testimony.

The Court was thus going to end the session and to adjourn it, without listening to the opinion of the defense.

Defender A. Mkoyan stated that they had a motion on releasing the defendant from detention. In response to this, the Court asked vexedly whether they were going to file a motion to release him from detention at every court session and what circumstances had changed to make them want to file a motion again.

The Defender indicated that after hearing the testimony of the aggrieved party, especially in the case when the witness did not show up at the Court, there was no chance of Hovik Matinyan affecting the aggrieved party and their witnesses. In addition, the Defender submitted to the Court the signatures of the defendant’s co-villagers in affirmation of H. Matinyan not to evade investigation as well as the reference provided by the head of the village about the fact that H. Matinyan resides in his uncle’s house in Gyulagarak.

https://youtu.be/I29juJJq480

The Court treated the submitted documents with contempt again, asking what legal force those documents had to make the Defender want to enclose them to the motion.

Although with difficulty, the defense filed the motion, providing arguments to support the reason why the preventive measure should be changed.

HCA Vanadzor advocate Ani Chatinyan joined the motion. She added that for Hovik Matinyan, his acquittal was placed on a higher scale than evasion of criminal liability, as, in their conviction, he did not commit a criminal offense. A. Chatinyan reaffirmed A. Mkoyan’s claim, according to which holding A. Matinyan in a place of deprivation of freedom for more than 8 months is already punitive in nature, which is prohibited by the RA legislation.

Prosecutor A. Poghosyan requested time to familiarize himself with the motion and expressing his opinion on it.

Without asking the opinion of the defense, the Court gave the Prosecutor 17 days to get familiar with the motion, which had already been presented orally, and scheduled the next court session for 4.00 pm on August 9, 2018.

A. Mkoyan, who has been representing H. Matinyan’s interests right from the beginning of the court examination of the case, does not see a biased approach and a tendency to unduly adjourn the court sessions in the actions of the Prosecutor and the Judge. However, he is convinced that filing a charge on the basis of only the victim’s testimony does not stem from the requirements of the law.

HCA Vanadzor advocate Ani Chatinyan mentioned that, by getting familiar with the case materials and then participating in a court session, it became clear that H. Matinyan had been brought to justice without any precise grounds, the accusation brought against him was not based on clear facts, and there was no reliable fact to prove his committing the act that he was accused of. “He has been deprived of freedom for months, and there is an impression that justice, rights and freedoms are only prescribed for the victim. The Court responds contemptuously to the wish of the defense to file a motion and then, without finding out the opinion of the same party, the defense, adjourns the examination of the case and schedules a day suitable for the Court and the Prosecutor, which I find to be disrespectful attitude towards the defense, which, unlike the other participants in the trial, places importance on the interests of justice and the protection of human rights and freedoms and for which the human being is the highest value,” A. Chatinyan noted.

Hovik Matinyan’s grandparents maintain that their grandson is being slandered, and that there is no evidence. They are of the opinion that the Prosecutor and the Investigator are cooperating with the woman accusing their grandson unjustly, and the Judge adjourns the examination of the case unduly.