Hayk Movsisyan’s case appeal rejected
15:34, December 1, 2014 | News, Own news | Right to Fair Trial, Right to Life, Rights of Soldiers/Recruits | Hayk Movsisyan
On 20 November, 2014 presiding Judge M. Petrosyan continued the hearing on a complaint against the decision of the general provision Court of the Kentron Nork-Marash administrative unit of Yerevan city regarding the case of Hayk Movsisyan died in the NGKR investigation isolator. Hayk Mosvisyan’ interests were presented by his mother’s Heghine Petrosyan’s legal representatives Artur Sakunc and Arayik Zalinyan.
It is worth reminding that previously the court hearing was delayed by the court with a purpose to gather complete information and materials regarding the dismissed criminal case to apply to the RA SIS once again. Particularly, presiding judge M. Petrosyan found that his request to provide the materials of the case has been partially met, i.e. RA SIS provided the materials that were already submitted to the Court of First Instance.
Considering the aforementioned circumstances and led by part 4 of Article 290 of RA criminal procedure code claim, according to which investigation body has to present the materials about the complaint to the court, the court found that in such conditions it would be impossible to continue and complete the case investigation and delayed the hearing.
On December 1, 2014, presiding judge M. Petrosyan informed that he received a letter from the RA General Prosecution Office according to which the materials were sufficient for continuning the investigation of the complaint. The court announced that trial was over and proceeded to the next stage of motions and presentation of additional evidence.
The plaintiff Heghine Petrosyan’s representative Arayik Zalinyan motioned for restarting a process of gathering materials for the criminal case dismissed by RA SIS. After discussing the motioin and consulting the court made a decision to reject the motion finding that the court had already used all possible means to receive the materials mentioned. Moreover, the court mentioned that the materials presented to the Court of First Instance were enough for making a decision.
- Zalinyan insisted on the motion once again mentioning that otherwise part 4 of Article 290 of RA Criminal Procedure Code principles will be violated as the mentioned provision obliges the investigation body to present materials of the complaint to the court. Presiding judge M. Petrosyan said that quoted norm defined that the investigation body could present materials regarding the complaint; however presenting those is not mandatory.
Then, making sure there were no other motions the court left to the consultation room to make a decision. About 20 mintues later RA Supereme Court Judge M. Petrosyan announced the introductory and concluding parts of the decision, according to which the decision of the First Instanse Court of the Administrative units of Kentron Nork-Marash of Yerevan city in RA remained in power rejecting the complaint presented by H. Petrosyan’s representatives.
Once this decision is received, H. Petrosyan’s representatives will appeal to the RA Cassation Court within a 15 day period.