Open news feed Close news feed
A A

OMBUDSMAN'S ATTITUDE IS PARTICULAR, ISN'T IT?

Politics

The 17 July article “Ombudsman’s attitude is also particular” reflected on Zhirayr Sefilyan's case, commander of a Shushi battalion. Sefilyan's lawyers stated that Human Rights Defender Armen Harutunyan made two different decisions on similar cases. The Ombudsman's office disseminated the following justification:

Lawyers Vahe Grigoryan and Ara Zakaryan informed the RA Human Rights Defender Armen Harutyunyan that the First Instance Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash Community prolonged Sefilyan’s arrest till 10.06.2007, by the decision of 04.04.2007 and after it there was no any other judicial act on keeping Sefilyan detained, and to this day he is in “Yerevan- Kentron” Penitentiary Institution.

Except this information the complaint didn’t contain any other information.

RA Human Rights Defender examined the question raised in the letter of complaint and ascertained that Zhirayr Sefilyan’s criminal case # 1- 184 /58211806/, which entered to the First Instance Court was accepted for legal procedure on 07.06.2007.

According to the Article 138 of the RA Criminal Code, the process of the term of keeping under arrest, on the Criminal Case in pre-trial legal procedure, is suspended on the day the Prosecutor sends the criminal case to the Court.

In the other letter addressed to the RA Human Rights Defender Liparit Simonyan informed that on 15.02.2007, the First Instance Court of Ararat region delivered a judgment regarding the use of arrest as a preventive measure with respect to his client G. Poghosyan. G. Poghosyan was arrested on 13.04.2007 and by the court decision the beginning of the detention on remand term was considered 13.04.2007, and the end of it 13.06.2007. But according to the letter of the Prosecutor of Ararat region on 14.06.2007 the Criminal case was brought to the First Instance Court of Ararat region on 12.06.2007 and accepted for legal procedure on 15.06.2007 , that is after two days of the termination of detention on demand.

At the same time it becomes clear from the letter received on 14.06.2007 that the term of keeping G. Poghosyan under arrest must be count up on the Court. The mentioned circumstance caused that the RA Human Rights Defender accepted the case to discussion and sent a letter to the RA Ministry of Justice Penitentiary Department offering to give an explanations on the mentioned case.

To identify two different cases and to conclude that on two similar cases the Ombudsman has made different decisions is, at least, unacceptable, as each case has its own peculiarity and the letters of complaint are not classified by the similarity, but they are discussed by the concrete facts raised in the application.

At the same time we would like to inform that before making the decision the Human Rights Defender’s Office several times invited abovementioned lawyers to discuss the raised issues in point of fact, but the lawyers could not accept the invitation.