04.04.2022 | An important decision by the Court of Cassation regarding the prior behavior assessment when the convict is released on parole

The Court of Cassation made a very important decision on granting the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office in regard with the convict released on parole.


In particular, the convict convicted for 15 years for the crimes under Article 38-104, Part 2, Points 5, 7 and 8 of the RA Criminal Code, Article 175, Part 2, Points 1, 3 and 4 of the RA criminal Code and Article 38-238, Part 3, Point 1 of the RA Criminal Code and Article 268, Part 1 of the RA Criminal Code on September 15, 2020 was released on parole for over 3 years imprisonment setting probation.


The Court found that the convict inspires faith to change for the good.


In the result of the prosecutor’s appeal, the RA Criminal Court of Appeal left the decision in force against which the Deputy Prosecutor General submitted an appeal.


The factual circumstances of the convict's behavior and health condition were assessed while serving his sentence in the light of the legal positions previously expressed on the institution of parole, the Court of Cassation, agreeing with almost all the groundings of the RA Prosecutor's Office, found that subordinate courts have not taken into account the circumstances mentioned in the reports of the penitentiary and probation services during the entire period of their stay in the penitentiary institution. In particular, during his stay in the penitentiary institution, the convict was not encouraged, did not participate in educational programs, sport and cultural events or self-employed associations functioning at the penitentiary institution, and measures for re-socialization and personal development.


That is, the RA Court of Cassation agreed with the clear approach expressed in the appeal and in the absence of disciplinary sanctions and not involvement in sport, educative, cultural and re-socialization different personal development, can’t give grounds for his or her transfer to a correctional facility with a lower degree of isolation or for parole.


Meanwhile, the convict was subject to disciplinary sanction for 5 times while serving his sentence.


Moreover, the Court of Cassation outlined that in certain situations the health condition of the convict could not be considered a sufficient factor to justify not being involved in work, because he was able and, if he wished, he could be involved in work.


The Court of Cassation has also given significant importance to the convict's conduct before his/her importance. In particular, the court noted that the person had previously been released on parole after serving part of his sentence, but then committed a deliberate, aggravating new crime.


Based on the above-mentioned, the court decided that the lower courts' conditional release of the convict on parole was not well-founded and the factual circumstances of the case were not properly taken into account the application of the law was not correct. In the result, the Court of Cassation granted the appeal of the Prosecutor's Office, overturned the decisions of lower courts on the convict G. Davtyan.