0 8000 12 11

On April 7, 2016, the RA Administrative Court, presided by A. Tovmasyan, held a hearing on HCA Vanadzor v. RA Prosecutor General’s Office under the claim on compelling the latter to provide the requested information.

The court hearing was attended by plaintiff’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, and Hayk Petrosyan, representative of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office. The latter submitted to the Court a power of attorney confirming his authority.

The Court set the procedure of the trial proceedings, after which the plaintiff’s representative made an opening remark.

T. Siradeghyan mentioned that HCA Vanadzor submitted an inquiry to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office requesting information on the criminal cases investigated by the RA Special Investigation Service under Article 119, Article 309(2) and (3) and Article 341 of the RA Criminal Code. However, the RA Prosecutor General’s Office failed to provide the requested information and what is more the Organization received no response at all from it. The RA Special Investigation Service sent the Organization a copy of the letter addressed to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office; accordingly, the RA Prosecutor General’s Office had sent the inquiry to the RA Special Investigation Service. In her opening speech, T. Siradeghyan provided grounds on the violation of the Organization’s right to freedom of information and found that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office was the holder of the information and was under obligation to provide the complete information requested by the inquiry. The plaintiff’s representative noted that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office acted as an agency responsible for supervision over pre-trial proceedings on criminal cases investigated by the RA Special Investigation Service, and the information requested in the inquiry was submitted to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office by the RA Special Investigation Service. Moreover, the RA Prosecutor General’s Office submits annual reports on its activities to the RA President and the RA National Assembly, which are published on the official website of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office. Hence, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to grant the claim of HCA Vanadzor and compel the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to provide the information requested in the Organization’s inquiry.

The defendant’s representative H. Petrosyan asked the plaintiff’s representative why the Organization had requested the information from the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, given that the preliminary investigation was carried out by the RA Special Investigation Service.

The plaintiff’s representative noted that HCA Vanadzor found that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office possessed the requested information. Besides, according to RA Government Decree № 1225-N of 2008, the agencies responsible for preliminary investigation, including the RA Special Investigation Service, submit reports to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to keep statistics, which also implies that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office possesses the information requested by the Organization.

Defendant’s representative H. Petrosyan also made opening remarks. He stated that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office had responded to the letters of HCA Vanadzor, and moreover after the second inquiry, it submitted a letter to the RA Special Investigation Service. H. Petrosyan noted that while the Organization was entitled to freedom of information, the information requested should be obtained from its holder. He also added that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office published communications covering general data, i.e. they contained no information by individual agencies responsible for preliminary investigation. Hence, he requested the Court to dismiss the claim.

T. Siradeghyan asked the defendant’s representative whether the RA Prosecutor General’s Office had any evidence to the effect that the letters in response to the inquiry of HCA Vanadzor were sent to the address of the Organization and that they were received by it. H. Petrosyan noted that the submitted letters had been entered in the registers, but in response to the Court’s question, he said that the letters had not been sent with receipt notification. T. Siradeghyan asked the defendant’s representative a question on the powers of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office covering supervision of pre-trial proceedings. The latter noted that the investigators of the RA Special Investigation Service submitted the decisions made during the preliminary investigation of criminal cases to specific prosecutors of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, and that he could not provide information on all the general criminal cases but only on those under his own jurisdiction. In response to the next question, he admitted that all the decrees requested by the Organization’s inquiry had been submitted to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office.

The Court sought to find out the defendant’s position on the response provided by the RA Special Investigation Service to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, and the defendant’s representative stated that the RA Special Investigation Service possessed the information and as for the contents of the letter, it was only the RA Special Investigation Service that could provide clarifications.

The Court passed to the stage of evidence examination, after which the plaintiff’s representative expressed a wish to submit another evidence to the Court before making a final speech.

She noted that before submitting an inquiry to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, the Organization had submitted a similar inquiry to the RA Special Investigation Service, but the latter had not provided the information in question and stated that it submitted informative reports on such information to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office and progress reports to the RA Police Information Center. She mentioned that since the issue arose at the stage of trial proceedings, and the defendant had not attended the pre-trial hearing, the Organization submitted to the Court the copy of the inquiry and the response it received at the stage of trial proceedings.

The Court considered it necessary that such letters were submitted and accepted them by attaching them to the case.

In her speech, T. Siradeghyan mentioned that the trial proceedings substantiated the fact that the RA Prosecutor General’s Office was the holder of the information since it was under obligation to keep the statistics and the decrees on each criminal case were submitted to it, and the RA Prosecutor General’s Office failed to prove the fact of submitting  response to the Organization’s letters. Hence, T. Siradeghyan requested the Court to uphold the claim and compel the defendant to provide the requested information.

The defendant’s representative did not make any final speech.

Considering the trial proceedings on this case completed, the Court scheduled the day for announcing its judgment. The Court’s judgment will be announced on April 25, 2016, at 12:56 pm.

See also: hcav.am