Գլխավոր դատախազ Աննա Վարդապետյանի ղեկավարությամբ խորհրդակցություն՝ Երևան քաղաքի դատախազությունում

5 Vazgen Sargsyan street 0010 Yerevan Republic of Armenia

Tel: +374 (10) 511-650



Responsible for ensuring freedom of information

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

10.06.2022 | In the result of the court decision, ignoring the possibility of committing a new crime, a person was released from custody and committed a new crime

Another case was registered when, with proper justification and arguments of the investigator or prosecutor about the existence of grounds for detaining the accused, as a result of a court decision, the accused was released and committed a new crime.


On June 4, 2022, A.B. was charged under p. 1, part 4 Article 38-267.1 and p. 3 Article 268 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia. The preliminary investigation established that he transferred 490.000 drams to an Iranian citizen through an unidentified person, inciting him to smuggle narcotic drugs across the state border of the Republic of Armenia. On June 1, 2022 in the area of ​​the first inactive tunnel near the state border of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the city of Agarak, he illegally acquired for personal use a narcotic drug like Methamphetamine in an especially large amount weighing 86.9 grams, which was found during the personal search.


B. partially pleaded guilty to the charge and was detained.


However, during the preliminary investigation of the criminal case, it turned out that before that, A.B. brought as an accused in the case of committing a crime under part 1 of Article 266 of the RA Criminal Code, which was being investigated in the investigation department of the Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts of the IDYE of the IC of the RA.


On 8 December, 2021 the Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance of Yerevan of the Republic of Armenia chose detention as a preventive measure, but subsequently the court rejected the request of the body conducting the proceedings to extend the period of detention for two months, and the person was released.


Later, the RA Prosecutor's Office appealed this decision to the RA Court of Appeal, which rejected the complaint.


The courts, emphasizing the unreasonable diligence of the prosecution authorities in ensuring a proper investigation of the case, ignored the detailed grounds for the requests for detention, in particular the high likelihood of a new criminal offense if released, and in such circumstances, the factual information about the impossibility of guaranteeing the correct behavior of the accused in choosing other measures of restraint. In particular, the fact that A. B. had previously been sentenced to 13 years in prison for a particularly serious crime (banditry), after being released on parole, he was charged with a serious crime.


Under such circumstances, the body conducting the proceedings as a measure of restraint against the accused chose written recognizance not to leave the country, after which, in fact, being at large, he committed the above criminal act of complicity in the smuggling of narcotic drugs on a large scale without the purpose of trade.