Tigran Safaryan, Stepan Hovakimyan's attorney, applied to the Court of Appeals appealing against the decision of the Yerevan Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative regions general jurisdiction court of August 2, 2011 that rejected the claim arguing that the Special Investigation Service had conducted proper investigation and the claim is not grounded.
It is worth reminding, that Stepan Hovakimyan and Vahram Kerobyan were accused in theft from cinema "Moskva" in 2010 basing on Hovakimyan's self-confessing testimony. Hovakimyan claims that the confession was obtained from him by torture. Attorney Tigran Safaryan had applied to the Yerevan Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative regions general jurisdiction court to carry out proper investigation and start a criminal case on torturing.
"On August 10, 2011 a decision (number EKD/0084/11/11) made by the Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative regions general jurisdiction court judge G. Khandanyan "On Discussing the Appeal" was obtained and only after obtaining that appealed judicial act, it turned out that on June 13 V. Muradyan, senior prosecutor of the RA Prosecutor General Office, had presented to the court written explanations on the appeal objecting it with certain argumentation. The party that presented the appeal was not informed about these written explanations neither by the court that examined the appeal, nor by the prosecutor that presented them," attorney Tigran Safaryan mentions in his claim already to the Court of Cassation.
The attorney demands to completely satisfy the presented cassation claim completely overturning the decision of August 2, 2011 made by the Yerevan Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative regions general jurisdiction court, annul the decision of April 13, 2011 by the RA Special Investigation Service investigator K. Torosyan "On Rejecting to Start a Criminal Case and Not Executing Criminal Prosecution" and the RA Prosecutor General Office senior investigator V. Zh. Muradyan's letter on its being legitimate and grounded because the appeal was not legitimate and grounded.
T. Safaryan claims that the court has violated requirements of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms since only after receiving the appealed judicial act it turned out that on June 13, 2011 V. Muradyan, senior prosecutor of the RA Prosecutor General Office, had presented to the court written explanations on the appeal objecting it with certain argumentation. The court did not inform the party that presented the appeal about the above written explanation and argumentation brought in it thus violating the principle of competition, equal chances of parties to protect their arguments, principle of "equal weapons".
The attorney also claims that the court has violated requirements of article 358 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code since the adopted judicial act is neither legitimate, nor grounded or justified.
"The appealed judicial act is absolutely not grounded or justified since the court has not mentioned why and basing on what concrete examined evidence it came to a conclusion that the appeal is not grounded. The court did not even demand and get any materials from the body conducting legal proceedings. The court took in good faith the prosecutors explanations that literally repeated certain parts from the decision made by the investigator K. Torosyan even without taking into consideration the fact that presented explanations were based on explanations not corresponding to reality given exclusively by policemen that are refuted by indisputable evidence," attorney Tigran Safaryan's claim reads.
The claim completely - here.
Source - www.hra.am