Tweet
According to the Representative of Vahe Avetyan's Father, the
Prosecutor's Office Has Violated the Criminal Procedure Code Sending
the Harsnakar Case to Court
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/08/24/102719/
August 24, 2012 17:20
A few days ago, during a conversation with www.aravot.am, Lusine
Hakobyan, the representative of Vahe Avetyan's legal successor - his
father - and the other aggrieved persons, informed that their motion
had been denied orally. Today, during a conversation with her, we
inquired whether they had received a written denial and on what
grounds the motion had been denied. L. Hakobyan replied, `It is a
rather groundless document, the motion has been denied groundlessly.'
She went into detail, `There are no grounds, the denial is groundless.
It reads that the motion has been completely denied. If it is
completely denied, it is not clear why they make references to the
part that was taken out of the case and legal and investigative
actions mentioned in the motion. Generally, that denial is
groundless.'
L. Hakobyan informed that it was the very reason why they would appeal
to the prosecution's office today.
Then the counselor noted, `Although one cannot pin much hope on the
prosecutor's office, since by just sending the case to the court, the
prosecutor's office has violated Article 267 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, which reads that the prosecutor's office cannot send the case to
the court before solving the issue of the party's complaint. And in
this case, the prosecutor's office hasn't waited till we filed a
complaint, then it would examine the complaint and afterwards send the
case to the court.' L. Hakobyan makes the following assessment of what
has happened, `This is about the system's incomprehensible hurry or
very well understandable hurry.'
In response to our question whether they were convinced that the
restaurant's owner had been informed about the argument between a
waiter and a customer, while filing a motion to involve R. Hayrapetyan
as a suspect, L. Hakobyan said, `We were not sure and that is why we
filed a motion, in order that he was involved and suspicions
concerning him were solved, so as he could participate in the trial
and he was asked the questions, which he wasn't asked in the framework
of a real preliminary investigation.'
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
Prosecutor's Office Has Violated the Criminal Procedure Code Sending
the Harsnakar Case to Court
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/08/24/102719/
August 24, 2012 17:20
A few days ago, during a conversation with www.aravot.am, Lusine
Hakobyan, the representative of Vahe Avetyan's legal successor - his
father - and the other aggrieved persons, informed that their motion
had been denied orally. Today, during a conversation with her, we
inquired whether they had received a written denial and on what
grounds the motion had been denied. L. Hakobyan replied, `It is a
rather groundless document, the motion has been denied groundlessly.'
She went into detail, `There are no grounds, the denial is groundless.
It reads that the motion has been completely denied. If it is
completely denied, it is not clear why they make references to the
part that was taken out of the case and legal and investigative
actions mentioned in the motion. Generally, that denial is
groundless.'
L. Hakobyan informed that it was the very reason why they would appeal
to the prosecution's office today.
Then the counselor noted, `Although one cannot pin much hope on the
prosecutor's office, since by just sending the case to the court, the
prosecutor's office has violated Article 267 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, which reads that the prosecutor's office cannot send the case to
the court before solving the issue of the party's complaint. And in
this case, the prosecutor's office hasn't waited till we filed a
complaint, then it would examine the complaint and afterwards send the
case to the court.' L. Hakobyan makes the following assessment of what
has happened, `This is about the system's incomprehensible hurry or
very well understandable hurry.'
In response to our question whether they were convinced that the
restaurant's owner had been informed about the argument between a
waiter and a customer, while filing a motion to involve R. Hayrapetyan
as a suspect, L. Hakobyan said, `We were not sure and that is why we
filed a motion, in order that he was involved and suspicions
concerning him were solved, so as he could participate in the trial
and he was asked the questions, which he wasn't asked in the framework
of a real preliminary investigation.'
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN