Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor

On February 27, 2020, RA NA deputy Arman Babajanyan published noteworthy details in regard to his life in the penitentiary institution in 2008. In his post, which was also published by media, he touched upon his health problem and the provision of improper medical aid. At the end of 2008, with severe headaches, A. Babajanyan was transferred from the Hospital fo Convicts to Erebuni penitentiary institution, where Henri Bakunts, Head of the RA Association of Neurologists, was invited. After receiving the pharmaceutical treatment prescribed by him, Babajanyan’s health state deteriorated. He was again transferred to the Hospital of Convicts. Further examinations make it clear that the prescriptions made by Bakunts was contraindicated for his diagnosis, “B complex medicament, which was prescribed by the neurologist and which I received via injection for months on end, was contraindicated for a patient with tumor. B complex nourishes any tumor”, Babajanyan wrote in his post.  

On March 2, 2020, HCA Vanadzor Chairman A. Sakunts made a report on this post to the RA Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan, claiming to initiate a criminal case; conduct a full, comprehensive and proper investigation into the initiated case; discover, in a manner prescribed by law, those guilty of violating A. Babajanyan’s rights; and hold them liable. 

Let us also add, that Babajanyan concluded his post this way, “I only remember the name of one and the surname of the other of the two persons. That one was a former RA Defense Minister’s father. Names are not important, I knew for sure that the instructions were given from the very above. In the first stage of deprivation of liberty, it was Kocharyan, and in the end, it was Serzh Sargsyan”.

On March 6, A. Sakunts’s report, together with the copy of Babajanyan’s post, was sent from the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to RA Special Investigation Service to prepare materials and resolve the process in a manner established by Articles 180-181 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code. Taking into account that there are no features of prima facie action prohibited by law and done by a state service official, on March 27, the prepared materials were sent from the Special Investigation Service to the Division of Investigation of Grave Crimes of Yerevan Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee.    

On March 31, 2020, A. Mnatsakanyan, PIC investigator of the division, made a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case. According to the decision, during the preparation of materials, Babajanyan applied to the body conducting the proceedings and stated that his facebook post was just a publication and he had not presented it as a crime report. Babajanyan also refused to undergo a forensic expertise and asked to leave the materials of the case without consequences. During that time, it also turned out that his case was archived and destroyed in the penitentiary institution on the grounds of expiration of the storage period. According to Article 175 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, “The prosecutor, the investigator, the investigation body must institute criminal prosecution, within their authority, provided there are reasons and grounds for the initiation of criminal prosecution envisaged in this Cod”. Article 176 of the same Code states that statements about crimes sent to the investigation body, investigator, prosecutor by physical persons and legal entities may be reasons for initiation of criminal prosecution.  

PIC investigator Mnatsakanyan invoked RA Court of Cassation analyses on a number of legal acts, the combination of which became a ground to make a decision on refusal.  

According to the analyses of RA Court of Cassation, information indicating crime features can be a ground to initiate a criminal case. Only based on them is it possible to check, initiate a criminal case or make a decision on refusing the initiation of a criminal case. Moreover, a ground for the initiation of a criminal case cannot be  any report, but only a crime report, which should contain exact data in regard to a concrete crime, since a report is a legal fact entailing various procedural legal relations. 

Guided by the above-mentioned legal norms, the body conducting the proceedings came to the conclusion that the materials of the case did not contain corpus delicti indicating concrete crime features, since the data presented by the person who presented the crime report were vague and lack certainty. The person, who can present clarifications on the information, refused to give explanations, and under this condition, it is impossible to initiate a criminal case.

Guided by the requirements of a number of Articles of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, PIC investigator A. Mnatsakanyan made a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case based on the report made by HCA Vanadzor Chairman Artur Sakunts.

Photo taken from Arman Babajanyan’s Facebook page