0 8000 12 11

On May 5, 2015, the RA administrative court, presided by judge G. Sosyan, resumed the trial on the appeal of the couple Ashot Khudoyan and Heghine Makaryan against the RA Police. Tatevik Siradeghyan, representative of the plaintiffs, presented some new evidence to the court to be attached to the case. In particular, at the previous court hearing, the Court obliged the plaintiffs to submit to the court the decree to dismiss criminal proceedings based on the materials prepared by the RA Special Investigation Service as well as the resulting decrees previously submitted to the Court. At this court hearing, the representative of the plaintiffs presented to the court protocols of some explanations on the materials prepared upon the crime report, particularly, the explanations by plaintiffs H. Makaryan and A. Khudoyan, witness Emma Sahakyan, plaintiffs’ neighbor Greta Fidanyan and the forensic medical examination expert opinion. As for the decree to dismiss initiation of criminal proceedings based on the materials prepared by the RA Special Investigation Service, the defendant’s representative, Marta Melkonyan mentioned that the decree in question supported the arguments presented by them in court against the appeal. She also noted that the decree rejected the fact of exerting violence and its unlawfulness. The plaintiffs’ representative asked the defendant’s representative several questions. The questions concerned the legal basis for using physical force and warnings of using such force. The defendant’s representative found the questions rather strange and noted that she had already explained during the trial proceedings that the plaintiffs and their children had been removed from their sit-in place with the use of physical force under the preventive measures and in line with the requirements of the law. Moreover, according to the materials prepared by the RA Special Investigation Service, the actions of the police contained no breaches of the law, and the decree remained valid upon being appealed with the court of first instance, the RA Court of Criminal Appeal and the RA Court of Cassation. The plaintiffs’ representative highlighted the fact that the data obtained through the materials upon the crime report and the data mentioned by the RA Police representatives during the proceedings showed considerable differences. The plaintiffs’ representative detailed that the materials in question failed to obtain any single evidence on the force or violence used against the plaintiffs. All the police officers who provided explanations under the materials in question denied the fact of forcibly removing H. Makaryan and A. Khudoyan. Moreover, the police officers mentioned in their explanations that they transported the plaintiffs of their own free will and the only reason of transporting them by a police car was that they lacked the necessary money. Besides, T. Siradeghyan noted that materials prepared upon the crime report claimed that the plaintiffs and their three minor children had been transported in the same car, while the representatives of the RA Police mentioned during the proceedings that the plaintiffs were transported in 2 cars. The parties to trial did not submit any motions on any other evidence, and the Court passed to the examination of the available evidence. Upon the examination of the evidence, the parties to the trial made final speeches. The plaintiffs’ representative mentioned that the day before the incident, the Police representatives approached the plaintiffs for several times and supported their demand to leave the sit-in place by the official visit of V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation. They also added that it was a shame.  The plaintiffs received no other legal basis or legal demand the breach of which might call for the lawful use of physical force. The plaintiffs’ representative noted that the RA Police attempted to adapt its actions within the legal limits by claiming having acted solely within the provisions of law. Nevertheless, the fact of violating the plaintiffs’ right to freedom of assembly and freedom of movement proves indisputable, since they had been removed from the place of their assembly in an unknown destination, and only later it was revealed that they had been moved to their apartment in Vagharshapat city. Thus, the plaintiffs’ representative insisted on the appeal and asked the court to uphold it by considering the actions of the RA police unlawful. In her speech, M. Melkonyan, the RA Police representative, supported the arguments submitted during the proceedings and asked the court to dismiss the appeal. The court will announce its ruling on this case on May 22, 2015, at 3 pm.