Today the criminal case launched against Suren Khachatryan, the governor of Syunik, was closed and Aravot.am inquired from Heritage Party MP Zaruhi Postanjyan in that regard whether such an end of the sensational event had been expected. According to her, this story has many unrevealed circumstances, “Silva Hambardumyan’s complaint, the statement she made was strange. I realized from the beginning that something was wrong. Her complaints seemed to be made in good faith. There were many incomprehensible things, at first they said that the cameras had not recorded, then they said something different. Silva decided to complain by herself and she decided to forgive also by herself. At least she acted within the limits of her rights, forgiving or not forgiving Suren Khachatryan was her business. Perhaps the victim thought that Suren Khachtryan did not hurt her by that battery or slap, I don’t know.”
According to Zaruhi Postanjyan, certainly using violence against anyone is groundless and in Suren Khachatryan’s case, it was particularly unlawful, as according to the spread information, he did not defend, on the contrary, assaulted a woman, “I treat his deed very negatively, particularly given the fact that he is an official, he should have been more discreet and realized that the society was more careful toward him and would assess him more sensitively and critically.” Zaruhi Postanjyan added that generally in the cases of personal accusations, if the sides made a deal, the case was closed, “The state cannot interfere with that, if it had been a case of public accusation, the state would have been obliged to do something. In this case, there is no argument between them anymore and the state has no right to interfere. If Suren Khachatryan had disturbed the public order in “Marriot” by his battery, it would have been qualified as hooliganism and in that case, no matter Silva Hambardzumyan had complained or not, had taken the complaint back or reconciled, the state would have imposed sanctions. However in this case, there was a different procedure in the trial case.”
Hripsime JEBEJYAN
