The court found Robert Hovsepyan guilty and charged him with
almost maximal term. However, the lawyer states that there is no direct
evidence proving his client's guilt: the court based its decision only on the testimony
given by a former policeman.

On 14 May 2013, the First
Instance Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash Adminsitative Districts, chaired by the
Judge M. Papoyan delivered a verdict sentencing Robert Hovsepyan to 7 years of
imprisonment for committing a crime under Article 177 (3(1.1)) of the Armenian
Criminal Code, for illegal entrance to a flat and stealing property of 230.000
AMD value.

The prosecutor asked to
find R.Hovsepyan guilty and to sentence him to 7 years of imprisonment
considering that the guilt of the defendant has been grounded and proven. Notably
the punishment for this charge is deprivation of liberty for 4-8 years.

The prosecutor referred to the
self-incriminating confession of R.Hovsepyan given during his interrogation as
a suspect as a key evidence. Whereas Hovsepyan and his lawyer insist that this
confession was extorted through violence and violations of the law; a criminal
case has been instituted against two policemen on the basis of this fact.

Hovsepyan's lawyer Sargis
Khachatryan in his speech asked to acquit the defendant, as he strongly
believed that Hovsepyan's guilt had not been proven in the court. Particularly,
the lawyer emphasized that R. Hovsepyan had been summoned to the Kentron Police
Department on 3 October 2012. He had been interrogated in the absence of a
lawyer and subjected to violence and threats; as a result he had confessed in
committing 7 cases of robbery. However, the protocols about his arrest and
interrogation were registered only as of 4 October 2012.

As a result of violence
exercised by policemen, Robert sustained bodily harm which was registered
during medical examination upon his admission into the temporary detention facility
for arrestees.

On 18 December 2012 the
Special Investigative Service instituted a criminal case against two operative police
officers of the Kentron Police Department of Yerevan Police Khachik
Bakhbudaryan and Artak Barseghyan and charged them with abuse of power and
commitment of official fraud.  At this
moment the case is reviewed at the First Instance Court of Kentron and
Nork-Marash Adminstrative Districts.

The lawyer also reminded
that although Hovsepyan had confessed in committing 7 instances of robbery, in
December 2012 the pre-trial investigation body dropped 6 charges against him
due to lack of evidence.

The lawyer stated that the
protocol of interrogation should be considered as inadmissible evidence, so the
court decision shall not be grounded on it as this evidence had been obtained unlawfully.

The lawyer had also submitted
private inquiries and found out that there is no such a person as Gohar
Hamayaki Tadevosyan, although she, according to materials of the case,
participated in various investigation procedures as a witness of inquest and
her name and signature appeared in a number of protocols.

“There is an impression
that in the Kentron Police Department's investigative division has a staff
position of witness of inquest, and this post is occupied by a person who does
not exist in Armenia – Gohar Hamayaki Tadevosyan,” stated Sargis Khachatryan in
the courtroom.

The fact that no such witness
of inquest had been present at a number of criminal proceedings was confirmed
also by the victim and the witness Albert Gevorgyan. Taking into consideration
that these proceedings had been conducted with violations of the law, the
lawyer motioned that these protocols (on seizure
of property and identification of a stolen computer) also be considered inadmissible.

The lawyer yet during the
pre-trial investigation had submitted a motion requesting to examine the
printouts of phone conversations of operative detectives of the Criminal
Investigation Division Khachik Bakhbudaryan and Artak Barseghyan as well as
Albert Gevorgyan. The motion had been dismissed. However, the printouts of the
abovementioned  phone conversations are available
in the case files of the criminal case against two operative detectives on
exercising violence against Hovsepyan.

These printouts prove that prior
to and after the arrest of Hovsepyan the policemen in question had frequent
telephone contacts with witness Albert Gevorgyan. The latter while testifying
as a witness in the courtroom stated that he did not know the policemen in
question, however, during subsequent testimony he changed his statement.
Gevordyan stated that he could have been having telephone contacts with the
operative detectives regarding the fact of the theft at his flat.

The lawyer emphasized that
one of the thefts that Hovsepyan had been initially charged with happened in
the flat of the witness Gevorgyan. It was also mentioned that until 2003Gevorgyan
worked at the same Police Department “Kentron”.

Taking into consideration
the above-mentioned facts, the lawyer requested that testimonies of witness
Gevorgyan be also considered unreliable, hence the court’s decision shall not
be  grounded on it.

The lawyer also reminded
that according to the statement of Gevorgyan, the video surveillance system of
the “Star” bar should have recorded the moment when Hovsepyan sold allegedly
the stolen computer to Gevorgyan. However, for unclear reasons, the video tape
had not been requested, analyzed and included in the case files.

Robert Hovsepyan in his
final speech reiterated that he was not guilty.

The court, considering the
presented evidence, ruled that “in the criminal case no objective data were
obtained, which could raise any doubt against reliability of the testimonies of
the witness Albert Gevorgyan”, and that the guilt of the defendant was fully proved.

The court found that there
were no circumstances that would positively characterize the defendant and mitigate
his guilt and punishment, and added that the repeated commission of a crime was
an aggravating factor in this case, as Hovsepyan has been sentenced before.

The court grounded its
ruling on the testimonies of the witness Albert Gevorgyan, who stated that
Hovsepyan had sold a white computer to him, which he later handed over to
police. 

There is no direct evidence
proving the guilt of Hovsepyan, such as fingerprints or testimonies of any
other eye- witness.

No experiment was carried
out to check whether it was possible to enter the flat and leave it the way
that was suggested by the investigation.

The defense is going to appeal
the verdict.

By Anna Melikyan