Lawyer Ghevond Papoyan addressed an open letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of Armenia and the Committee on Ethics and Disciplinary Issues of Judges, which we present below.
"Dear colleagues, criminal justice is at risk in this case, the Court does not ensure the balanced protection of private interests, the proceedings are not conducted on the basis of equality and competition between the parties. In such unequal conditions, in the pre-trial proceedings and in the Court, the defense is unable to effectively protect the rights of individuals. Due to the above, I have to speak about the problems in criminal proceedings No. ED1/0837/01/24. The actions taken during the court hearings in criminal proceedings No. ED1/0837/01/24 give rise to serious concerns. According to the assessment of the defense side, in case of continuing in this way, a particularly serious crime, a case of murder or causing serious bodily injury dangerous to life, will be covered up.
The actions of the court and the public prosecutor form a belief that the latter do not want the real circumstances of the case to be revealed, due to which the Court limits the time periods necessary for the implementation of the defense, rejects the motions aimed at the exclusion of the real circumstances of the case, with the aim of ending the investigation of the criminal case very quickly. According to the assessment of the defense, the Court and the public prosecutor are constrained, which may be due to the identity of the victim, as well as the presence of representatives of foreign bodies during several court hearings. It is an impression that the Court and the public prosecutor are acting in such a way as not to suddenly "hurt" the victim and the factual circumstances of the case are not disclosed to the detriment of the victim.
Regarding the factual circumstances of the case, the hypothesis put forward by the defense side was not discussed by the body implementing the proceedings.
The body conducting the proceedings arbitrarily did not evaluate and did not take into account the uniqueness of the forensic medical expert No. 0126, which confirms that the part of the palm of the accused L.H.'s hand was damaged by a knife shot. Meanwhile, surprisingly, both the Court and the public prosecutor did not want to address the said evidence, they did not want to ask the victim questions about it. It is clear that all this is in the interests of the victim. Forensic medical opinion No. 0126 confirms that the part of the palm of the accused L.H.'s hand was injured by a knife, and in that case the factual circumstance based on the accusation that the knife was with the accused from the beginning is denied, moreover, this evidence confirms the hypothesis put forward by the defense that the victim tried to kill with a knife or inflicted a life-threatening serious bodily injury. caused to the accused, while the act of the victim was arbitrarily not given a legal assessment. In addition, the accusation was based on unreliable, groundless factual circumstances.
I do not think that anyone would believe that it is possible to inflict four injuries on the left side of the body with the right hand while walking quietly behind a person, one of which is on the front part of the left hand.
I don't think anyone would believe that during leisurely walking, the shoulder part of a person's shirt would move in such a way that without that part of the shirt being damaged, that part of the body would be damaged.
The actions before the court give evidence to make sure that the court will also reject the requests to perform an investigative experiment to get a reliable, substantiated answer to the above-mentioned factual circumstance, which is of paramount importance to the case, and to appoint a comprehensive examination to determine the path of the force of the damage action.
The victim claimed that he got to know the accused through a social application and they agreed to meet, while neither the examination of the phones of the accused nor the examination of the victim's phone revealed such a fact. Even in the phones of the accused, no such application was found, and no fact of such application being deleted was recorded. After that, the injured party, seeing that his claim is denied, noted that if the other party deletes the correspondence or the attachment, then it is completely deleted for him as well. Meanwhile, in response to the inquiry made by me to the person in charge of the said attachment, it appeared that if one party deletes the correspondence, then the other party sees that the letter has been deleted, moreover, the other party deletes the attachment, then the other party does not delete the attachment.
The actions before the court give grounds for making sure that the court will also reject the petitions about making a request by the court in order to find out the mentioned factual circumstances, to re-examine the phones while they are turned on with the participation of a specialist, to perform an investigative experiment, to get the answers to those questions.
The public prosecutor, publishing in a distorted form the protocol of the examination of the decryption of the phone number of the accused, tried to justify it, and then claimed that the accused allegedly contacted the victim, while the decryption of the outgoing calls of the phone number provided on the basis of the application of the accused shows that this claim of the public prosecutor is also fictitious.
Dear colleagues, the above gives rise to serious concerns and creates a belief that the Court tends to end the investigation of the case too quickly, for which the motions presented by the defense to clarify the true circumstances of the case will be rejected, which, according to the defense, will contribute to not giving a legal assessment to the victim's actions."
