Point of View

The court uphold the decision on detention


The judge Mkhitar Papoyan

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. 

Author Կարինե Իոնեսյան
Source www.hra.am