Victor Darbinyan’s Denial as a Result of Pressure
00:00, September 26, 2011 | News | Police, Prevention of Corruption
Human rights activist Artur Sakunts believes that the public denial of Victor Darbinyan in response to “Hetq” article is a result of pressure towards him. He believes that only in case of reaching an agreement under pressure the preventive measure of detention used against V. Darbinyan’s son would be changed. He is assured that the detention was unlawful and “disproportionate.”
V. Darbinyan’s son was taken into custody under the excuse that he could affect the process of investigation.“There is a Prosecutor, how can the investigative body or the investigation process be pressured?”, wonders Sakunts. Elaborating on the reasoning, he concludes that V. Darbinyan’s son was kept hostage through detention. (The hooliganism charges brought against V. Darbinyan’s son were reformulated upon arrest: hooliganism accompanied by causing moderate damage to health. The injured driver was not filing a complaint. The forensic medical expertise defined the injury as light. Despite this fact, the investigative body had considered the charges grounded and had submitted a motion to the court to make a detention order. V. Darbinyan’s son was detained. Nevertheless, he was released before the end of the term by the decision of the prosecutor).
“What changed? It can be assumed that they have come to some agreement. The man was forced to reach an agreement”, notes the activist and adds, “I consider it an act of pressure against Darbinyan, which has some serious corruption element”. Generally, the human rights activist considers this whole story pressure by the legal system against V. Darbinyan. This can be proved by the fact that the Prosecutor had ordered the Police Head to inspect the parking lot belonging to him. And the Prosecutor does not give the reasons for this order in his note. “He is an economic entity, no criminal case could be initiated against him. But that is also a way of pressure to show that they are capable of doing it”, says Sakunts.
On the other hand, the human rights activist argues that as the information given by V. Darbinyan, about the inspection in his parking lot organized by the Prosecutor has already been confirmed, there is no reason to doubt V. Darbinyan’s other words. “He is being pressured because he is making claims; how could he make a demand from the Head of the Investigation Department concerning repairing the damaged cars, moreover, ignore the Prosecutor’s intervention or offer?”, remarks Sakunts.
The human rights activist stresses that V. Darbinyan is an official, emphasizing that even officials “are not protected” and if the legal system is using its authorities even against officials, then how would it treat regular citizens? “The regular citizen in most cases does not even have the means of an official to resist,” says the activist.
As Sakunts observes, both G. Ispiryan and V. Darbinyan are officials. However, in fact, G. Ispiryan who is a representative of law holds a higher status than V. Darbinyan who does not represent the law. “It is a typical corruption, says Sakunts. How dare you to make claims?”
Meanwhile he notes that the other parties who suffered casualties in the car accident did not make any claims. “The people who suffered casualties are not making any claims, they have been forced not to file complaints,” he says.
(“Hetq’s observation shows that in the car accident not only V. Darbinyan’s taxis were damaged but also the “Infinity” of Taron Apresyan, Head of Orange Armenia Vanadzor Branch and “Samand” cars owned by “Prize” Taxi Service. Taron Apresyan, the owner of the “Infinity,” says that his car was repaired by CASCO Insurance Company. But it is more likely that he got it repaired with his own means, because his car had both MCTPL (Compulsory Insurance of Motor Third-party Liability) and CASCO Insurance. According to MCTPL legislation, if the same damage is subject to coverage by both MCTPL and CASCO, then compensation is primarily provided based on MCTPL contract. And since in this situation a criminal case is initiated, the coverage by MCTPL is postponed till the end of the criminal case. The owner of “Samand” told “Hetq” that the car was damaged lightly and continues being used damaged).
Human rights activist A. Sakunts assesses V. Darbinyan’s case as an instance of corruption. In his words, it is a theoretically evident truth that corruption is present in the legal system and is its main driving force. But V. Darbinyan’s case is a concrete manifestation of the phenomenon. “Instead of going in the right direction, the law-enforcement body continues using pressure and forcing people to renounce. This is a typical expression of unwillingness to combat corruption. In this case, the bodies combating corruption themselves cannot fight, because they are buried in corruption”, wraps up the human rights activist.