Tweet
Not paying the debt on promised time is not seen as an immoral behavior
http://www.pastinfo.am/en/node/4937
Thu, 12/13/2012 - 17:15
In April 2009 Khachik Ghazaryan gave Karen Hovsepyan leather for
producing shoes with the cost of AMD 1,120,000.
According to the oral agreement K. Hovsepyan was obliged to pay Kh.
Ghazaryan the indicated amount of money by the end of May 2009.
However, by that time he could only pay AMD 600,000. In the light of
not having means to pay the rest AMD 520,000, K. Hovsepyan proposed
Kh. Ghazaryan to return the remaining unused leather or pay its cost
part by part. The latter did not agree.
On August 4, 2009 another conversation between K. Hovsepyan and Kh.
Ghazaryan over the indicated debt ended by K. Hovsepyan being injured
in the area of his neck and then receiving serious body injuries
threatening his life.
On October 14, 2009 a criminal case was initiated at the Erebuni
Investigation department of the General Investigation Department of
the RA Police on the grounds of Article 112 Section 1, i.e.
intentionally causing a bodily injury or any other serious damage to
the health of another person. Afterwards Kh. Ghazaryan was brought in
an indictment on the grounds of the indicated article of the RA
Criminal Code.
On December 23, 2009 the case was sent to the Court of General
Jurisdiction of First Instance of Erebuni and Nubarashen
administrative districts of Yerevan with an accusation conclusion. On
February 16 the defendant was found guilty on the grounds of Article
112 Section 1 of the RA Criminal Code (causing damage of average
degree to the health of another person by negligence) and the sentence
against Kh. Ghazaryuan was conditionally not enforced, providing for 3
years of probation period on the grounds of Article 70 of the RA
Criminal Code (conditional non-enforcement of the penalty).
However later the Court of Appeal overruled the sentence of the Court
of First Instance from February 16 and found him guilty on the grounds
of Article 112 Section 1 of the RA Criminal Code (causing damage of
average degree to the health of another person by negligence) and
sentenced him to 3 years of imprisonment.
The defendant Kh. Ghazaryan's lawyer submitted a cassation complaint
against the decision of the Court of Appeal from April 7, 2010.
The author of the complaint noted that the penalty appointed against
Kh. Ghazaryan is not fair and doesn't corresponds neither to the
gravity of the crime nor to the circumstances of the crime, moreover,
is not necessary and sufficient to correct him and prevent new crimes.
Particularly, the circumstances of the crime and the personality of
the criminal were not taken into consideration.
It is indicated in the complaint that the action of the defendant was
the result of the immoral behavior of the victim, who had violated the
oral agreement previously reached between them.
The plaintiff also noted that there are certain mitigating
circumstances in the case, such as the fact that Kh. Ghazaryan doesn't
have previous convictions, positive description, 3 dependent people,
one new-born child, the socially vulnerable status of the family and
him being the only wage-earner of the family.
However, the Court of Cassation decided to reject to complaint, noting
that according to Article 10 of the RA Criminal Code (the
individualization of the principle of justice and responsibility), the
penalty against the person who had committed a crime is fair if it
corresponds to the gravity of the crime, to the circumstances of the
crime, the personality of the criminal, is necessary and sufficient to
correct the person and prevent a new crime.
The CC also reports that the circumstances of the grave crime
committed by the defendant Kh. Ghazaryan `certify to the high degree
of danger that his personality can carry for the society and exclude
the possibility of conditional non-enforcement of the penalty against
him'.
The Court notes that `the facts of having no previous convictions,
positive description, 3 dependent people, one new-born child, the
socially vulnerable status of the family and him being the only
wage-earner of the family, do not certify in these conditions to the
absence of public hazard, which is typical for the crime committed by
Kh. Ghazaryan'.
Thus the CC agreed with the type and size of the penalty brought
against the defendant by the Court of Appeal and stated that they
correspond to the factual circumstances of the case and qualified the
conclusion of the Court of Appeal on not enforcing the conditional
non-enforcement of the penalty as reasoned and argumentative.
The Court also touched the qualification of `immoral actions' brought
against the victim, saying that `...not paying the debt on promised time
cannot be seen as an immoral behavior'.
Based in these and many other arguments, the CC finds that `The
decision of the Court of Appeal from April 7, 2009 must stay in force'
and makes a relevant decision to reject the cassation complaint and
leave the sentence of the RA Court of Appeal against the defendant Kh.
Ghazaryan from April 7, 2010 in accordance with Article 112 Section 1
of the RA Criminal Code in force.
http://www.pastinfo.am/en/node/4937
Thu, 12/13/2012 - 17:15
In April 2009 Khachik Ghazaryan gave Karen Hovsepyan leather for
producing shoes with the cost of AMD 1,120,000.
According to the oral agreement K. Hovsepyan was obliged to pay Kh.
Ghazaryan the indicated amount of money by the end of May 2009.
However, by that time he could only pay AMD 600,000. In the light of
not having means to pay the rest AMD 520,000, K. Hovsepyan proposed
Kh. Ghazaryan to return the remaining unused leather or pay its cost
part by part. The latter did not agree.
On August 4, 2009 another conversation between K. Hovsepyan and Kh.
Ghazaryan over the indicated debt ended by K. Hovsepyan being injured
in the area of his neck and then receiving serious body injuries
threatening his life.
On October 14, 2009 a criminal case was initiated at the Erebuni
Investigation department of the General Investigation Department of
the RA Police on the grounds of Article 112 Section 1, i.e.
intentionally causing a bodily injury or any other serious damage to
the health of another person. Afterwards Kh. Ghazaryan was brought in
an indictment on the grounds of the indicated article of the RA
Criminal Code.
On December 23, 2009 the case was sent to the Court of General
Jurisdiction of First Instance of Erebuni and Nubarashen
administrative districts of Yerevan with an accusation conclusion. On
February 16 the defendant was found guilty on the grounds of Article
112 Section 1 of the RA Criminal Code (causing damage of average
degree to the health of another person by negligence) and the sentence
against Kh. Ghazaryuan was conditionally not enforced, providing for 3
years of probation period on the grounds of Article 70 of the RA
Criminal Code (conditional non-enforcement of the penalty).
However later the Court of Appeal overruled the sentence of the Court
of First Instance from February 16 and found him guilty on the grounds
of Article 112 Section 1 of the RA Criminal Code (causing damage of
average degree to the health of another person by negligence) and
sentenced him to 3 years of imprisonment.
The defendant Kh. Ghazaryan's lawyer submitted a cassation complaint
against the decision of the Court of Appeal from April 7, 2010.
The author of the complaint noted that the penalty appointed against
Kh. Ghazaryan is not fair and doesn't corresponds neither to the
gravity of the crime nor to the circumstances of the crime, moreover,
is not necessary and sufficient to correct him and prevent new crimes.
Particularly, the circumstances of the crime and the personality of
the criminal were not taken into consideration.
It is indicated in the complaint that the action of the defendant was
the result of the immoral behavior of the victim, who had violated the
oral agreement previously reached between them.
The plaintiff also noted that there are certain mitigating
circumstances in the case, such as the fact that Kh. Ghazaryan doesn't
have previous convictions, positive description, 3 dependent people,
one new-born child, the socially vulnerable status of the family and
him being the only wage-earner of the family.
However, the Court of Cassation decided to reject to complaint, noting
that according to Article 10 of the RA Criminal Code (the
individualization of the principle of justice and responsibility), the
penalty against the person who had committed a crime is fair if it
corresponds to the gravity of the crime, to the circumstances of the
crime, the personality of the criminal, is necessary and sufficient to
correct the person and prevent a new crime.
The CC also reports that the circumstances of the grave crime
committed by the defendant Kh. Ghazaryan `certify to the high degree
of danger that his personality can carry for the society and exclude
the possibility of conditional non-enforcement of the penalty against
him'.
The Court notes that `the facts of having no previous convictions,
positive description, 3 dependent people, one new-born child, the
socially vulnerable status of the family and him being the only
wage-earner of the family, do not certify in these conditions to the
absence of public hazard, which is typical for the crime committed by
Kh. Ghazaryan'.
Thus the CC agreed with the type and size of the penalty brought
against the defendant by the Court of Appeal and stated that they
correspond to the factual circumstances of the case and qualified the
conclusion of the Court of Appeal on not enforcing the conditional
non-enforcement of the penalty as reasoned and argumentative.
The Court also touched the qualification of `immoral actions' brought
against the victim, saying that `...not paying the debt on promised time
cannot be seen as an immoral behavior'.
Based in these and many other arguments, the CC finds that `The
decision of the Court of Appeal from April 7, 2009 must stay in force'
and makes a relevant decision to reject the cassation complaint and
leave the sentence of the RA Court of Appeal against the defendant Kh.
Ghazaryan from April 7, 2010 in accordance with Article 112 Section 1
of the RA Criminal Code in force.