0 8000 12 11

On January 4, 2016, the Prosecutor’s Office of Armavir Province of the RA provided HCA Vanadzor Office lawyer Ani Chatinyan with a dated “clarification” regarding the case of Anzor Karapetyan who died in Armavir Penitentiary Institution.

The Prosecutor’s Office provided the chronological overview of the proceedings of the criminal cases initiated with regards to the brawl and death incidents with the participation of Anzor Karapetyan. They also reminded about the rights granted to the Aggrieved Party when in fact the latter is already exercising them.

It ought to be reminded that on December 31, 2015, Anzor Karapetyan, following the brawl in the town of Armavir with her participation, was arrested on charges of attempted murder and then was detained as decided by the Court on January 3, 2016 and placed in Armavir Penitentiary Institution, where a few hours later she was found dead. According to the official version, she had committed suicide.

HCA Vanadzor Office undertook the protection of the rights of A. Karapetyan’s legal successors a few days after the incident and it has periodically made public statements about the proceedings of the case.

A criminal case was initiated in regard to the brawl with the participation of A. Karapetyan as well as her death.

The body conducting the proceedings related to the brawl first halted the criminal prosecution of A. Karapetyan on the basis of the latter’s death, and then, given the injuries received by Anzor Karapetyan during the brawl, recognized her as a victim and terminated the criminal case under the decision made on April 26, 2016, qualifying the actions of the other participants as necessary defense.

And only after A. Karapetyan’s legal successor, HCA Vanadzor lawyer Ani Chatinyan, appealed first to the RA Court of General Jurisdiction in Armavir Province and then to the RA Court of Appeals against the decision made on April 26, 2016  to terminate the criminal case, was the case sent back for preliminary investigation.

The suit on the suicide case initiated on September 14, 2016 was terminated on the day following the receipt of the results of the expert examination without even having them examined. (According to the results of the forensic psychiatric examination nine months after AnzorKarapetyan’s death, her personal psychological peculiarities could not have led to suicide).

Later on, in response to the Aggrieved Party’s petitions, it was informed that the proceedings related to the suicide case were resumed, but months later, after repeated inquiries, the proceedings were found out to be suspended again and as a result of the motion examination, “significant circumstances were not clarified.”

The representative of the victim’s successor A. Chatinyan, in a complaint filed against the September 14 2016 decision to suspend the criminal case on the suicide incident, citing a range of facts, expressed the viewpoint that important circumstances were left out of the examination.

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office published a similarly-titled article about the claim against the decision to terminate the criminal case, in which the omissions were presented and it was stated that an appeal was filed.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Armavir Province has decided to respond to this article by the HCA Vanadzor Office published at gala.tv and submit a “clarification” to HCA Vanadzor’s lawyer Ani Chatinyan.

It is noteworthy that the letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of Armavir reminds that “an opportunity has been given” to appeal the decision of the Court of First Instance at the Criminal Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation.

This formulation is at least illogical as the publication that was responded to clearly states that the Aggrieved Party filed an appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance which is currently being examined at the Court of Appeal.

It is unclear why the Prosecutor’s Office reminds the Aggrieved Party about their rights when they are already being exercised and why they have responded to that publication and decided to provide “clarification” .

HCA Vanadzor Office disseminates publications of such content regarding all the cases handled by the Organization’s representatives, presenting evaluative judgments. Yet for some reason this time the Prosecutor’s Office decided to respond.