Video

Արթուր Դավթյանի ելույթը ՀՀ դատախազության համակարգի հիմնադրման 104-ամյակի առթիվ

5 Vazgen Sargsyan street 0010 Yerevan Republic of Armenia

Tel: +374 (10) 511-650

E-mail: info@prosecutor.am

 

Responsible for ensuring freedom of information

The RA Prosecutor’s Office Division of Public Relations, head of the Division – Arevik Khachatryan

14.03.2022 | Clarification

The clarification of the RA Anti-Corruption Committee on implementing the Decision of the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan city by 3 February 2022 (before solving the problem of the its appealing by the Prosecutor’s office) not only does it not meet the regulations of the Criminal Procedure Code, the practice, but also directly contradicts the legal position of the RA ACC (as well as the former RA SIS) in many cases under its jurisdiction.

 

First, it is very strange that referring to Article 427, Part 1 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the colleagues of the RA Anti-Corruption Committee did not remember the existence of Article 103, Part 4 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, according to which in the case provided by the Code appealing suspends the execution of the appealed decision.

 

And that is in the case when, on the basis of Article 103, Part 4, starting from the former SIS, a practice has been established in the Anti-Corruption Committee, according to which filing a complaint against unresolved judicial acts suspends their execution until the superior decision is made by the court.

 

In regard with the 3-day period for the execution of a judicial act envisaged under Article 427, Part 2 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, which is referred to in the clarification of the RA ACC, it can refer only to the execution of a judicial act already entered into force. This position was also maintained according to legal comments by the courts. In particular, based on the appeal filed by the RA Prosecutor's Office on the issue of seizing property in another case under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Committee, the RA Appellate Court (ED/0513/11/20) analyzing Article 427 and 428 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code clearly state that the 3-day period is set for the execution of the judicial act already entered into force, and the 3-day period defined by the legislator refer to the court that rendered the judicial act, the court's obligation to execute the judicial act within that period.

 

In addition, the body conducting the proceedings, hurrying up to send the mentioned court decision to the head of the RA Cadaster Committee to cancel the restrictions applied to the land belonging to A. Abrahamyan in the criminal case, acted contradicting the practice of many other criminal cases. There are many cases when the investigators turn to the prosecutor in such situations, which in this particular case was forgotten to do in the ACC. Moreover, a similar behavior was shown by the very investigator who addressed a letter in this case to the RA Cadaster Committee.

 

In regard with the clarification of the RA ACC that the judicial act not entered into legal force according to Article 353 of the RA Criminal Code, is considered a crime, the authors of the clarification may not be aware that there are many cases when the participants of the trial in connection with the reports on the crime of non-execution of the judicial act, did not resolve the case on the merits, the investigators of the RA ACC made decisions on refusing to initiate a criminal case or considered it possible to refer to them only due to the results of the examination of appeals against those acts.

 

In regard with the judicial act after receiving on 11 February 2022, 4 days later - on February 15, before even filing an appeal by the RA Prosecutor's Office, the investigator hurried to send a letter to the head of the RA Cadaster Committee to notify the supervising prosecutor without notifying the supervising prosecutor to cancel the restrictions on the land belonging to Abrahamyan. In the result, the mentioned real estate was alienated.

 

It is obvious that it is necessary to find out all the circumstances that contributed to the alienation of the property, in terms of which there will be a backlash.

 

The RA Prosecutor General mentioned it in response to the journalists’ question.