Armavir District Court of General Jurisdiction found the defendant Arkadi Gevoryan guilty without reasonable grounds, basing his decision only on the self incriminating testimony obtained during the preliminary investigation.

On May 5, RA Court of Appeal decided to restart the investigation thus overturned the verdict of the Court of General Jurisdiction made on February 2.

28 -year-old Arkadi Gevorgyan is accused for committing four thefts and one attempt of theft. He insists that he was illegally kept at the police station for 5 days and was forced to give self-incriminating testimony in the absence of defense lawyer.

Defense lawyer of the defendant Gor Margaryan believes that the Court of General Jurisdiction has made a decision by violating material and procedural rights. Besides, during the preliminary investigation of the case the right of the defendant to have a defense lawyer was also violated and no sufficient evidences of the crime incriminated to the defendant was presented.

During the pleading defense lawyer Margaryan stressed out that defendant Arkadi Gevorgyan was interrogated as a suspect and gave a self incriminating testimony in the absence of defense lawyer.

To substantiate his words, the defense lawyer mentioned a short time difference between the arrest and involvement of the defense lawyer. According to the law, immediately after the arrest, the investigator is obliged to explain the right of arrested person, including the right for a lawyer and grounds for arrest. After that, if the arrested desires to have a public defender, the investigator should apply to the Head of the Public Defender's Office of the RA Chamber of Advocates. The latter should make a decision on assigning the public defender, inform the appointed defender about the decision and defender should be present during the interrogation of his client.

Gor Margaryan said that the time frame of 20 minutes between the arrest, involvement of the public defender and interrogation is not enough for all these stages. This fact proves that the public defender Tsolak Margaryan came to the police station only after the defendant gave his testimony and he just put his signature. "The defendant gave self incriminating testimony with violation of the right to have a lawyer. Thus, the testimony could not be applied for accusation and be considered by the court as a credible proof", said the defense lawyer.

The Article 6 (1)(3) (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights clearly defines that "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law" and "everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defense."

At the Armavir District Court of General Jurisdiction Arkadi Gevorgyan refused the testimony that he gave during the preliminary investigation. He said that the self incriminating testimony was written under the pressure and in the absence of defense lawyer. However nothing was done to determine the authenticity of his words. The judge Artur Adamyan found that the self incriminating testimony obtained during the preliminary investigation and testimony of the witness are more credible.

At the Court of Appeal defense lawyer Gor Margaryan presented number of arguments showing that the case was not examined thoroughly. In the protocol of the examination of the scene of the crime the investigator has registered that in the car belonging to the victim A. Asrgsyan no fingerprints or other tracks were found. Whereas the owner of the car said that after the theft attempt the car was used. Based on that, the defense lawyer concludes that the examination of the scene of the crime was not thorough; no fingerprints were taken for the expertise.  

According to another presented example, neither the investigation body nor the court determined the day of another crime incriminated to Gevorgyan, i.e. theft of the gas cylinder, however, they determined the time.

"In October of 2010, the date was not determined, around 01:00 a.m., the gas cylinder (volume 1,1 cubic meter, cost 140 000 AMD) was stolen from the trunk of the "Moskvich 412" car belonging to the resident of Armavir town Samvel (Gevorg) Movsisyan . The car was parked in front of his house", says the indictment of Armavir Office of Prosecutor's.  

"The Article 107 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code defines that solely on the basis of the evidences the facts and circumstances of the incident are determined (the time when the crime was committed, the venue, method, etc.). The European Court on Human Rights defines that for charging the person for any crime, the evidence confirming clear time and place of the commitment of the crime shut be put as the basis for the accusation".

Although the prosecutor Andranik Sahakyan evaluated the arguments of the defense council as groundless and abstract, the Court of Appeal (chairing judge Mher Arghamanyan) decided to restart the investigation.

Mary Aleksanyan

Source  www.hra.am