Welcoming such disposition, having grounds to suppose that such toughening may be applied only to separate judges, we present to Your attention the decision of the Court of Cassation of June 3, 2011 "On Returning the Cassation Appeal" concerning the case of Artak Manucharyan et al.

The appeal was lodged by the Deputy Prosecutor General and defenders of the accused.  

For the appeal of the prosecutor the decision of the Court of Cassation reads: "The person who lodged the appeal argued that the appeal should be accepted for proceeding since there is basis defined by point 1 of part 1 of article 414.2 of the RA Criminal Proceeding Code, i.e. the decision of the Court of Cassation on the issue raised in the appeal may have an essential significance for identical application of the law.

The Court of Cassation considers that the appeal of the RA Deputy Prosecutor General does not comply with requirements of article 407, part 1 of article 414.2 of the RA Criminal Proceeding Code and shall be returned on the following substantiation:

The Court of Cassation states that arguments of the complainant are not sufficient to conclude that the decision of the Court of Cassation on the issue raised in the appeal may have an essential significance for the identical application of law".          

We think that such assessment of the Court of Cassation cannot be considered a substantiation of a judicial act since it does not even specify what questions the complainant has raised that in the court's opinion cannot cause a problem for the identical application of law.  

The defendant's right for defense has been violated by judicial acts of the First Instance Court and Court of Appeal, and the deputy prosecutor's appeal makes a special emphasis on that circumstance. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Cassation had to substantiate why restriction of the defendant's right to have defense cannot be considered a violation of right for defense or why that question does not cause a problem of identical application of law.

In accordance with part 2.1 of article 414.1 of the RA Criminal Proceeding Code, "the decision of the Court of Cassation on returning the cassation appeal on the basis of lack of grounds specified by part 1 of article 414.2 of this Code shall be substantiated".

The above decision of the Council of Justice also reads: "In particular, the Constitutional Court of the RA has stated in the above decision that "(...) the legislation shall generally exclude the existence of an unsubstantiated judicial act since such an act cannot comply with basic principles of a jural state, cannot guarantee efficient judicial protection of people's rights as well as provide efficient restoration of violated rights" (see Decisions of the Constitutional Court (DCC-896) of June 15, 2010).

Considering that the decision of the Court of Cassation "On Returning the Cassation Appeal" of June 3, 2011 on the criminal case of Artak Manucharyan et al. is not substantiated either, we suggest that disciplinary actions are taken against those who adopted such a decision - Chairman of the Criminal Chamber of the RA Court of Cassation D. Avetisyan, judges of the same Chamber H. Ghukasyan, H. Asatryan, Y. Danelyan and A. Poghosyan.

Regards,

R. Sahakyan          

See- Advocates demand justice without "approvals" (video)