The representative of the Judicial Department did not present any evidence of the destruction of the personal data of the participants in the court session on Zh. Sefilyan’s case17:14, August 4, 2018 | News, Own news
On August 3, 2018, the RA Administrative Court continued to examine HCA Vanadzor Chairman Artur Sakunts’ claim against the RA Judicial Department.
Prior to the court session on the case of Zhirayr Sefilyan and others, which was set to be held at the Court of First Instance of Shengavit Community of Yerevan on March 2, 2018, the court bailiffs, learning that Artur Sakunts was going to participate in the aforementioned court session, searched him and took his personal data.
In contrast, the court bailiffs did not search the citizens participating in the other court sessions.
In the claim lodged with the court, A. Sakunts mentioned that the search process was obviously intended for humiliation. He demanded to declare unlawful the actions of the court bailiffs of the RA Judicial Department.
Enclosed to the application, he submitted video footage, from which it is seen that the court bailiffs obviously showed a discriminatory attitude depending on the person’s position and status.
During the court session held yesterday, the Court heard the arguments supporting the claim, which were presented by HCA Vanadzor advocate Ani Chatinyan, A. Sakunts’ representative, and examined the videos presented both by the claimant and the respondent.
In the video footage submitted by the claimant, it is clearly seen that the bailiffs manifest a selective attitude.
At the previous court session, the representative of the RA Judicial Department did not deny having taken personal data from the participants in the court session on only Zhirayr Sefilyan’s case.
The respondent’s footage showed the course of the court session, the behavior manifested by the participants in the court session (applauding, chanting, etc.). The argument supporting the submission of this video footage to the Court was that the video shows that the participants in the session did not display a usual behavior, and that is what the search as well as the taking of their personal data were conditioned by.
The RA Judicial Department had expressed its position regarding the claim earlier in their response to the claim. The respondent referred to that response before the Court.
The RA Judicial Department considered the bailiffs’ actions as lawful and mentioned that bailiffs have the authority to examine the persons entering the courtroom and their belongings as well as to check the person’s identity. The representative also mentioned that those actions of theirs were aimed at maintaining the security of the persons in the court and the public order.
Both in the response to the claim as well as at the previous court session, the representative of the RA Judicial Department claimed that passport data are destroyed following court sessions. And the Court requested to submit evidence of that. At this court session, the respondent once again referred to the response to the claim but did not submit any evidence of the destruction of passport data.
After the court session, A. Sakunts’ representative maintains that an obviously discriminatory and degrading approach was manifested towards Sakunts; the act of carrying out the search was degrading and he felt degraded.
Now what is clear is that the collecting of the personal data of the persons participating in the court sessions on the case of Zh. Sefilyan and others as well as their being searched were also of a punitive nature; an attempt was made to keep supporters away from participating in the public court session.
The Court is to render a judgment at the next court session, which was scheduled for 12.50 pm on August 20, 2018.