"Fact" daily writes:
Referring to the fact that Samvel Karapetyan's video message at the presentation of the "Strong Armenia" party was prepared and played through AB, lawyer Aram Vardevanyan informed that the restriction on Samvel Karapetyan's public speech has been removed, but the possibility of making a video or audio message has not been fixed in any way.
Vardevanyan said that a request was submitted to both the investigative body and the supervising prosecutor regarding the mentioned issue, in order to provide an opportunity for Samvel Karapetyan to make a public audio message. "However, the answer received from the investigative body was, in fact, equivalent to a refusal," said the lawyer.
Yesterday, the Investigative Committee responded to this statement in response to an inquiry by the government media. Many lawyers said yesterday that the CC's denial is actually a confirmation. Aram Vardevanyan is of the same opinion. "Please present this answer to any impartial observer, from which it is obvious that the Investigative Committee has just rejected it.
An application-question is submitted to the Investigative Committee not as a structure, but in this case as the body implementing the proceedings in the case of Samvel Karapetyan, in response to which we receive the position that the latter cannot come up with such an interpretation. If we are guided by the rule of linguistic or terminological interpretation, it is obvious that it is exactly the rejection.
I didn't want to touch on such details, but imagine if the restrictions are applied by court decision, but the circumstances of their observance or violation are assessed by the Investigative Committee, that is, when the Investigative Committee refers to the interpretation that it cannot interpret judicial acts, this is a classic example of presenting a half-truth. After all, if an alleged violation took place, the recipient of its assessment would be the Investigative Committee itself.
And I insist again that in the case of such an answer, the Investigative Committee did not record that it does not have the authority to record such a problem, or in the case of such behavior it does not have the authority to record a violation, but simply tried to avoid giving an answer, which is equivalent to a refusal," says Vardevanyan.
Details in today's issue of "Past" daily
