0 8000 12 11

Today, on December 11, 2017, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Lori Province upheld the appeal of Lori TV editor-in-chief Narine Avetisyan’s representatives.

With the appeal lodged before the Court they claimed to oblige the body conducting the proceedings to provide the copy of the conclusions of the forensic examination, which the body conducting the proceedings refused to provide, having interpreted the provisions of the RA Criminal Procedure Code in its own way. Through this, the Aggrieved Party was deprived of the opportunity to study the conclusion scrupulously and file relevant motions and was therefore subjected to unequal conditions.

It should be reminded that a criminal case was instituted after Narine Avetisyan’s professional journalistic activity was hindered through use of violence when she was shooting the asphalt paving works that were being conducted in the pouring rain on the bridge adjacent to the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Vanadzor.

The incident occurred on September 28, 2017. In the framework of the criminal case initiated on the same day HCA Vanadzor Chairperson Artur Sakunts and lawyer at the Organization Syuzanna Soghomonyan were recognized as the representatives of the Aggrieved Party – Narine Avetisyan.

Today the Court recognized the appeal of the representatives of the Aggrieved Party, A. Sakunts and S. Soghomonyan, as grounded and obliged T. Tadevosyan, the prosecutor conducting the proceedings, to provide the copy of the conclusions of the forensic examination to the Aggrieved Party.

Prior to this, Narine Avetisyan’s representatives had applied to A. Martirosyan, the Prosecutor of Lori Province, with the claim to further interrogate witness A. Sargsyan face to face in regard to the questions raised during the interrogation.

Lori Regional Investigative Department Major Case Investigator T. Tadevosyan had rejected the motion of the Aggrieved Party in regard to this matter on October 13, 2017.

At the interrogation face to face with Narine Avetisyan, the witness, being obliged to answer all the questions and provide all the details of the incident, did not provide answers to the Aggrieved Party, mentioning that he had answered those questions in his testimony.

Prosecutor of Lori Province Prosecutor’s Office A. Poghosyan, with the decision of November 28, 2017, annulled the invetsigator’s decision in regard to the aforementioned and assigned to further question the witness, conducting a second face-to-face interrogation if necessary.