The decision on the case of the Mashtots Avenue demonstrator is to be pronounced on December 1310:28, November 24, 2017 | News, Own news | Freedom of Assembly and Association
On November 22, 2017 the hearing of Mashtots Avenue demonstrator Geghetsik Tonoyan’s case resumed at the RA Administrative Court.
It should be reminded that the Police demand to hold the demonstrator liable as required by Points 11 and 15 of Article 180.1 of the RA Code of Administrative Offenses.
And G. Tonoyan’s representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, a lawyer at the Yerevan Office of HCA Vanadzor, demands to recognize the police officers’ actions as unlawful.
The video presented by the Respondent and the Counter-appellant was examined at the court hearing, and the Parties expressed their opinion on it, following which they delivered their closing statements.
The representative of the RA Police insisted that the assembly had not been dispersed by the Police. Instead, it continued on the sidewalks and reached its logical culmination. He indicated that the participants in the assembly, being on the street, were involved in road traffic and therefore should not have violated the rights of other individuals. S. Melikyan qualified the use of physical force against the participants in the assembly as lawful, referring to the statement of the Respondent, according to which the police officers had to show up, and indicating that they were in uniforms.
Respondent and Counter-appellant G. Tonoyan’s representative T. Siradeghyan also delivered a closing statement. She mentioned that there was no protocol drawn up and submitted to the Court regarding the offense as foreseen by Article 180.1 (11) of the RA Code of Administrative Offenses. Consequently, regardless of taking or not taking the action, G. Tonoyan cannot be subject to administrative liability for the given action. In addition to this, T. Siradeghyan mentioned that the Respondent had not taken any action disrupting the normal course of assembly. The RA Police had not submitted any evidence of presenting a demand to G. Tonoyan. Therefore, she should not be persecuted for that.
T. Siradeghyan requested to dismiss the claim completely.
In regard to the counter-claim, T. Siradeghyan insisted that the assembly was peaceful; hence, the Police had to support the assembly. And the police officers had to show up, regardless of the fact whether they were in uniforms or not. The Counter-appellant’s representative did not qualify the use of physical force against G. Tonoyan as lawful and requested to fully satisfy the counter-claim.
The court hearing thus ended. The decision is to be pronounced at 5.00 pm on December 13, 2017.