The protocol of the first session held on 19 January 2018 was signed only by the President and the Secretary, whereas according to Article 41 of the Charter, the protocol should have been signed by all the members and President of the Board.The same violation was registered also during the session held on 16 March 2018. Later, during the snap session held on 27 July 2018, in which 13 out of 19 members of the Board participated, Charter amendment was also on the agenda. According to the amendment, the number of the Board of Trustees became 23, but it was not properly substantiated. Besides, in contrast to the previous two sessions, the protocol was signed by 10 of the current members and the decision was accepted, which contradicts the Charter, as it needs ⅔ of the votes to be amended.
Moreover, trying to reach charter changes at every cost, Matenadaran’s Director Vahan Ter-Ghevondyan illegally and obviously submitted to the State Register Agency of Legal Entities an an extract of the protocol of the Board of Trustees’ snap session held on 27 July 2018 (instead of the protocol itself) and gave false information that the protocol had been signed by all the 13 members of the Board of Trustees who participated in the snap session.
Taking all the facts into account, a crime report was made to the RA Police Central Division. After receiving investigator S. Sargsyan’s decision on refusing to initiate a criminal case, an appeal was made to Kentron and Nork Marash Administrative District Prosecutor V.H.Janazyan, claiming to quash the decision on refusing to initiate a criminal case, and initiate a criminal case. The appeal was rejected.
Considering those two decisions ungrounded, an appeal was made to Yerevan city General Jurisdiction Court, which rejected it without taking into account all the facts.
Further, with the support of HCA Vanadzor, the Court’s decision was appealed in the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court examined all the grounds and found that there were prima facie crime elements. On 6 May 2021, the appeal was upheld. The General Jurisdiction Court decision was recognized as ungrounded and unreasoned, and the case was referred for a new examination.
This case is of crucial importance, since with obvious shortcomings and omissions, the bodies administering justice do not take into account the legal and factual grounds of the case, which impedes the process of restoration of justice.