Tweet
DOES THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SERVICE (SIS) PRESSURE A POLL-WATCHER WHO RECORDED A FACT OF BALLOT-BOX STUFFING?
March 8 2013
The Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Armenia has
applied to the Bar Association of the Republic of Armenia, asking to
discuss Tigran Yegoryan's actions and the issue of using disciplinary
measures against him, given the necessity of preventing such actions in
the future. The SIS states that Tigran Yegoryan, violating Article 6.1
of the Lawyer's Code of Ethics, failed to comply with the provisions of
the Criminal Procedure Code and the Defender Act, tried to influence
the investigating body using means not provided for by the law
and mentioned the latter's actions in a way not provided for by
the law. Referring to the Criminal Procedure Code, the SIS informs
that T. Yegoryan, not having the right to turn on a recorder, made
a recording etc. www.aravot.am inquire during a conversation with T.
Yegoryan whether he deemed the presented facts grounded and how he
would describe what had happened. Mr. Yegoryan said to us: "What
violation of the law are they talking about? If there is a violation,
every violation should be grounded and given a respective assessment.
If there is a violation of the law, the law-enforcement body doesn't
need to settle arguments in offices for 44 minutes and then apply
to the chief of the investigation service instead of taking its
investigating actions. If there is a violation of the law and their
demand is legitimate, the chief doesn't need to use force. This is
obvious even to a kindergarten child." Continuing, T. Yegoryan stated:
"What message are they talking about when in the presence of the person
against whom Narine Ismaili, a poll-watcher who has reported on the
violation, gives testimony that Anahit Sultanyan, the secretary of the
commission, opened the box with her own hand, so that a group of 30
youths could stuff the ballot box. And it is obvious that a witness
is being pressured here, and there is an uncompromising treatment
toward the witness's representative. In my opinion, there is no
alternative here, and one shouldn't be a genius to understand what
message the investigator is sending to that person." Talking about
the exploitation of the issue of recording, T. Yegoryan stated: "Not
only did I act in accordance with the law, I also didn't use certain
possibilities provided for by the law. It is obvious, since the law
cannot be interpreted as one desires. If the law makes it possible
to record, the criminal procedure doesn't forbid recording, then it
is obvious that I have a right to record. There is no other way of
interpreting. We have gone for interrogation three times, and I didn't
record when we first went. After that, it became obvious that when
I notice mistakes in the statement, I cannot prove. The investigator
says that it wasn't the case. It's my word against his. And we know
whose word is given the priority when one party is a police officer. I
was compelled to record, moreover, during the second interrogation,
the recording did not meet with so many obstacles. At that time, the
investigator expressed doubts about the genuineness of what Narine
was saying. During the third interrogation, realizing that I had
recorded the second interrogation and referred to fragments from it,
they tried to deprive me of that possibility." The attorney thinks
that the issue of political overtones is deeper. If one considers
political overtones in one particular case, the picture will not be
complete. However, he also notes: "Anyway, this is an issue of will. If
it is stated that there is will to solve all crimes, those related to
the electoral processes, in particular, I think that there just cannot
be such obstacles in the way of doing that properly. An investigation
is in progress, but the tension and opposition to the witness who is
giving testimony, has reported on the violation and wants the crime
to be solved is just incomprehensible and illogical. And this is done
by the Special Investigation Service." Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/03/08/152842/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
From: A. Papazian
March 8 2013
The Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Armenia has
applied to the Bar Association of the Republic of Armenia, asking to
discuss Tigran Yegoryan's actions and the issue of using disciplinary
measures against him, given the necessity of preventing such actions in
the future. The SIS states that Tigran Yegoryan, violating Article 6.1
of the Lawyer's Code of Ethics, failed to comply with the provisions of
the Criminal Procedure Code and the Defender Act, tried to influence
the investigating body using means not provided for by the law
and mentioned the latter's actions in a way not provided for by
the law. Referring to the Criminal Procedure Code, the SIS informs
that T. Yegoryan, not having the right to turn on a recorder, made
a recording etc. www.aravot.am inquire during a conversation with T.
Yegoryan whether he deemed the presented facts grounded and how he
would describe what had happened. Mr. Yegoryan said to us: "What
violation of the law are they talking about? If there is a violation,
every violation should be grounded and given a respective assessment.
If there is a violation of the law, the law-enforcement body doesn't
need to settle arguments in offices for 44 minutes and then apply
to the chief of the investigation service instead of taking its
investigating actions. If there is a violation of the law and their
demand is legitimate, the chief doesn't need to use force. This is
obvious even to a kindergarten child." Continuing, T. Yegoryan stated:
"What message are they talking about when in the presence of the person
against whom Narine Ismaili, a poll-watcher who has reported on the
violation, gives testimony that Anahit Sultanyan, the secretary of the
commission, opened the box with her own hand, so that a group of 30
youths could stuff the ballot box. And it is obvious that a witness
is being pressured here, and there is an uncompromising treatment
toward the witness's representative. In my opinion, there is no
alternative here, and one shouldn't be a genius to understand what
message the investigator is sending to that person." Talking about
the exploitation of the issue of recording, T. Yegoryan stated: "Not
only did I act in accordance with the law, I also didn't use certain
possibilities provided for by the law. It is obvious, since the law
cannot be interpreted as one desires. If the law makes it possible
to record, the criminal procedure doesn't forbid recording, then it
is obvious that I have a right to record. There is no other way of
interpreting. We have gone for interrogation three times, and I didn't
record when we first went. After that, it became obvious that when
I notice mistakes in the statement, I cannot prove. The investigator
says that it wasn't the case. It's my word against his. And we know
whose word is given the priority when one party is a police officer. I
was compelled to record, moreover, during the second interrogation,
the recording did not meet with so many obstacles. At that time, the
investigator expressed doubts about the genuineness of what Narine
was saying. During the third interrogation, realizing that I had
recorded the second interrogation and referred to fragments from it,
they tried to deprive me of that possibility." The attorney thinks
that the issue of political overtones is deeper. If one considers
political overtones in one particular case, the picture will not be
complete. However, he also notes: "Anyway, this is an issue of will. If
it is stated that there is will to solve all crimes, those related to
the electoral processes, in particular, I think that there just cannot
be such obstacles in the way of doing that properly. An investigation
is in progress, but the tension and opposition to the witness who is
giving testimony, has reported on the violation and wants the crime
to be solved is just incomprehensible and illogical. And this is done
by the Special Investigation Service." Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/03/08/152842/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
From: A. Papazian