0 8000 12 11

On May 16, 2014, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan, RA, presided by judge A. Bektashyan, proceeded with consideration of the appeal by Artur Sakunts and Arayik Zalyan, representatives of Heghine Petrosyan, whose son Hayk Movsisyan was found dead at the remand center in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

Note that on the previous court hearing, A. Sakunts, the representative of the applicant was provided with copies of the ruling by the senior investigator at the Special Investigation Department of Cases of Particular Importance, NKR General Prosecutor’s Office, dated March 18, 2013 on dismissing a part of criminal case and the ruling of the investigator at Department of Cases of Particular Importance, RA Special Investigation Service, dated December 10, 2013 on closing proceedings on criminal case № 62202513 in order to study the documents and state his position.

At the court hearing, A. Sakunts made some additional observations on the rulings above. In particular, A. Sakunts stated that the ruling by the RA SIS covered materials of the criminal case initiated by the Special Investigation Department of the NKR General Prosecutor’s Office that were used to dismiss the part of the case against the personnel of the NKR Police Penitentiary Department, inmates of the investigatory isolation ward, defendants and convicts on the ground of lack of any crime elements of driving or inciting Hayk Movsisyan to suicide in their actions. The representative of the applicant Heghine Petrosyan also stated that the contents of the criminal case initiated in the NKR concerned the death circumstances; this implies that Hayk Movsisyan had to be recognized as an aggrieved party, and his mother as a successor to the aggrieved party, so that she could protect their rights and interests.

The forensic examination of the corpse commenced after 12 hours upon Hayk Movsisyan’s death, and the re-examination revealed some extra injuries on Hayk Movsisyan’s body, particularly scratches on the third portion of the right forearm inflicted by a blunt object before his death. However, the investigating agency failed either to consider the circumstances above in course of the investigation or to clarify the existence of traces of strokes by a blunt object made when he was still alive. Considering the injury, A. Sakunts voiced his opinion that Hayk Movsisyan had suffered violence that could have incited him to suicide (if the version of the preliminary investigation authority is circulated).

Hence, the RA Special Investigation Service had sufficient grounds to recognize Hayk Movsisyan as an aggrieved party, and his mother – as the successor to the aggrieved party. Meanwhile, Heghine Petrosyan had already filed a relevant application during the preliminary investigation. The consideration of the application was delayed until obtaining sufficient grounds.

Along with the circumstances above, A. Sakunts mentioned that the investigation authority had also failed to consider the information that Hayk Movsisyan had been discharged a short time before his conscription due to being deemed unfit for military service. Hence, both the appropriateness of conscription procedure and the fact of developing a disease in the army received no legal assessment.

At the hearing, A. Sakunts asked the court to uphold his appeal on recognizing Hayk Movsisyan as an aggrieved party, and his mother – as the successor to the aggrieved party.

Afterwards, the Court left to the retiring room to make the ruling that would be announced at 7 p.m. May 19, 2014.