The victim of doctor’s illegal activities H. Katrjan cannot restore his rights17:47, November 26, 2014 | News, Own news | Right to Fair Trial, Right to Life, Social Rights
In 2014, Hovhannes Katrjyan applied to HCA Vanadzor office with a request to protect his rights. For the recent few years, the latter has been fighting for the restoration of his rights and reimbursement for the losses he has suffered. H. Katrjyan has serious health problems, since 1985 he has been living with the help of a heart stimulating device.
In 2004 and 2008 H. Katrjyan was operated in “Arythomological Cardiologic Center of Armenia”. During the first surgery, the Center’s head and surgeon Smbat Jalalyan implanted a used heart stimulating device taken from a dead person’s body from USA and the second time despite the fact that he had paid for a 10 year guaranty holding brand new device he was implanted with a device having a 6 year period guaranty.
Based on the fact, a criminal proceeding was started in the Erebuni investigation ICA department of RA Police and afterwards the criminal case was assigned to the Yerevan city ICA department of RA Police.
Until now, however, due to the fact that S. Jamalyan is wanted, he had not been charged yet. Currently, in order to ensure objective, complete and multifaceted investigation an additional forensic committee examination has been assigned and has not ended yet.
Despite the fact that H. Katrjyan is recognized a victim in the criminal case, he had not been informed about the decision of assigning of a new examination, thus depriving him from his right to ask questions and participate in the examination.
For the protection of his rights H. Katrjyan filed a civil lawsuit to the Court of First Instance. The court satisfied the suit and decided to confiscate “Arythomological Cardiologic Center of Armenia” for 6.370.000 AMD in favor of H. Katrjyan.
As a result of enforcement operations however, the judicial act remained unexecuted as it was discovered that the Center did not have any property or financial possessions.
Thus, the proceeding has ended while the center continues its operations in various sites of other clinics. Currently, H. Katrjyan fights for the dismissal of the decision about ending the enforcement proceeding.
We state that H. Katrjyan’s case is one of the examples when using all the legal rights and mechanisms an individual tries to fight for the restoration of his violated rights but even the justice is powerless against fighting power and criminal and the court’s decision continues to carry the false label of “mandatory” only on paper.