0 8000 12 11

On December 4, 2015, the RA Administrative Court, presided by H. Ayvazyan, resumed the court examination of the administrative case on the claim by the RA Police against Taron Siradeghyan on administrative liability under Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences, and on the counter-claim by Taron Siradeghyan against the RA Police on considering the police actions unlawful. At the previous court hearing of the case, the court examination was completed and the Court passed to the stage of verbal pleadings and adjourned the hearing. The court hearing of December 4, 2015 was attended by Aida Demirkhanyan, legal representative of the plaintiff and counter-defendant RA Police, defendant and counter-plaintiff T. Siradeghyan and his legal representative Tatevik Siradeghyan. They delivered their final speeches.

In her final speech, the representative of the RA Police noted that the protest action of June 23, 2014 was initially launched on Saryan Street and an assembly participant stated that they wished to walk up to the office of the RA Public Services Regulatory Commission. After opening the road in front of a Gazel vehicle, the assembly participants sat in Saryan Street, and the police required that they opened the road and refrained from obstructing the traffic. However, the assembly participants, including T. Siradeghyan, did not obey the legal requirement of a police officer and consequently faced administrative arrest. The representative of the Police considered the requirement legal noting that compliance with it was compulsory for all citizens and officials. As for the counterclaim, she found that it should be rejected since the investigation into the case had substantiated that T. Siradeghyan showed illegal behavior. As to the evidence that T. Siradeghyan was kept at the police over 3 hours, A. Demirkhanyan noted that the witnesses questioned during the trial were T. Siradeghyan’s colleagues and in their own testimonies, none of them argued that he had been kept at the police for almost 4 hours. Hence, A. Demirkhanyan requested the Court to uphold the claim of the RA Police, bring T. Siradeghyan to administrative liability under Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Offences and dismiss the counterclaim.

In his final speech, defendant and counter-plaintiff T. Siradeghyan noted that the RA Police could not provide any evidence that he had not complied with any legal requirement by any RA Police officer. He argued that he wished to take part in the electricity rate hike protest action of June 23, 2014, which failed due to the illegal actions of the police.

T. Siradeghyan also stated that he wished to be involved in the trial since firstly he did not want to be fined for any offence that he had not committed and secondly he wanted to punish all the police officers who committed numerous violations as he considered that it would be useful to the future improvement of our country. T. Siradegyan’s representative also gave a final speech noting that throughout the trial, the RA Police argued that T. Siradeghyan had not committed the offence mentioned in his administrative records reading that he ignored the legal requirement of the police and broke through the police cordon. Instead, throughout the trial, the RA Police representative sought to provide grounds to the effect that T. Siradeghyan received legal requirement in terms of traffic violation. As to the administrative and legal qualifications of the offence attributed to the defendant, T. Siradeghyan noted that throughout examination of the claim the RA Police provided no substantial evidence to the effect that the RA Police had issued any legal requirements to T. Siradeghyan and found that the evidence within the case did not attest to that. She also noted that even if such a requirement was issued, it could not be considered legal as it failed to comply with the components of a legal requirement. Hence, given the lack of the grounds that T. Siradeghyan committed the offence attributed to him and guided by the presumption of innocence principle as enshrined by Article 21 of the RA Constitution, his representative found that any unconfirmed suspicions should be interpreted in his favor. The counter-plaintiff’s representative also touched upon the arguments on the illegal actions of the police. T. Siradeghyan noted that given the absence of any legal requirement, the counter-plaintiff’s arrest was in conflict with both the RA Constitution and domestic legislation, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Also, she found that the evidence provided throughout the court examination in the aggregate also suggested that T. Siradeghyan was kept at the RA Police over 3 hours stipulated by law. Also, the final speech of the counter-plaintiff’s representative covered grounds on violations of T. Siradeghyan’s right to freedom of assembly and use of unnecessary and unjustified physical force by the RA Police during the assembly. The counter-plaintiff’s representative held that during the court examination relevant grounds were provided to the effect that T. Siradeghyan’s right to liberty and security of person, freedom of movement and freedom of assembly were violated. Summing up her speech, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to fully reject the claim of the RA Police and fully uphold the counter-claim.

Presiding judge H. Ayvazyan declared the trial completed and scheduled the announcement of the court ruling for December 11, 2015, at 5:15 pm.