The judge Mkhitar Papoyan rejected the motion of advocates for the
second time to release Stepan Hovakimyan and Vahram Qerobyan mentioning they
are accused of a grave crime.

To remind, Stepan Hovakimyan and Vahram Qerobyan are charged for
organizing and committing a theft from «Moscow» cinema house on January 10th,
2010 based on the Article 38(3) and Article 177. 3(1) of the RA Criminal Code,
They are under preliminary detention for more than two years. The guys are
charged for theft of 5 million 80 000 AMD and 10 000 RR.

The judge of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Center and
Nork-Marash of Yerevan M. Papoyan did not take into account the fact that the
grounds on which the two men were arrested 2 years ago are not relevant today.
The relatives were ready to give a bail, Hovakimyan’s father was ready to put
the only real estate they have their apartment in pledge. The court did not
take into account the petition of more than 20 intellectuals by which they
ensure Stepan Hovakimyan’s proper behavior.

The court made a decision to uphold the decision on arrest taking
as a principle the degree of danger of the crime.

While according to the Article 135 of the RA Criminal Code the
court, the Prosecutor, the investigator or the investigation body can use a
preventive measure only in case when the materials acquired for the criminal
case give the sufficient reasons to suppose that the suspect or the accused may;

1)  hide from the body which
carries out the criminal proceeding;

2)  inhibit the pre-trial
process of investigation or court proceeding in any way, particularly by means
of illegal influence of the persons involved in the proceeding, concealment and
falsification of the materials relevant to the case, negligence of the subpoena
without any reasonable explanation;

3)  commit an action
forbidden by Criminal law;

4)  avoid the responsibility
and the imposed punishment;

5)  oppose the execution of
the verdict.

The judge did not give reasons for the decision of his detention
proceedings from the above mentioned provisions taking into account the factual
circumstances of the case.

Papoyan did not take into account that there is a decision made by
the European Court of Human Rights that the seriousness of the punishment is
not sufficient for detaining the accused. (Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/97)
(Sect. 4) (Eng) – (26.7.01) (paras. 80-81)

At the same time the court cannot ground the decision of detention
by the measure of caused damage but it must take into account the personality
of the accused and his characteristic data. The aim is not the compensation of
damage but ensuring the presence of the accused in the court investigation.

The examination
lasted three months did not give any result

Result of examination of handwriting was pronounced in the court
according to which the materials were not sufficient to claim that the second
signature didn’t belong to cashier Karine Misakyan.

Stepan Hovakimyan’s advocate Tigran Safaryan submitted a motion to
carry out an examination of the handwriting of the cinema cashier. The
administration of the cinema mentions that in January 4-10 the cashier’s notes
were done by one person but it is obvious for the advocate that the
handwritings are different.

The defending side also presented the mediations that the
evidences of Hovakimyan’s cellmates and relatives living in Russia were
attached to the case as proves. The court admitted them not as a proof but
promised to take them into consideration when making a final decision.

The next court hearing will take place on April 12 at 2:20 pm.