Are innocent people held accountable instead of robbers?
Gegham Hakobyan, a member of the Bar Association of the Republic of Armenia, has taken on the defense of Vardan Hovhannisyan, a citizen of the Russian Federation; he intends to convene a press conference and to make a row, since, as G. Hakobyan put it during a conversation with Aravot, “an innocent person is under threat of being wrongfully convicted and not only are the real perpetrators at large, they are also encouraged, since a person who has nothing to do with the incident will be held accountable instead of them.”
G. Hakobyan has already applied to the president of the republic a few times. It is about the sensational robbery of the hardware store Ojakh, in regard to which only one person has been arrested so far, whereas, according to the witnesses, a few people committed the crime. Yesterday the law court of the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts (Judge Levon Avetisyan) suspended the hearing of the case, because Alexander Aghayan, a prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office of the same administrative district, hadn’t attended the
court session, the reason for which, according to the prosecutor, was preparing intermediate reports. The next court session on the Ojakh case is due to take place on July 13, at 2 p.m. According to the counselor, Vardan Hovhannisyan is charged with Article 175, Section 2, Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 – i.e. that Vardan committed a robbery making an arrangement with 3 unknown persons in advance. Moreover, as the counselor assures, the proof underlying the case is a fingerprint, which seems an obvious fact at first sight, but in Gegham Hakobyan’s words, the fingerprint that has been found as a result of a forensic examination was on the catalogue of exhibits in the exhibition hall of Ojakh. Vardan Hovhannisyan communicated in his testimonies both to the preliminary investigation body and the court that he had really been to different hardware stores, including possibly that store, and he had turned over the pages in the catalogue of exhibits, since he aimed at having his apartment renovated. According to the counselor, “However, the preliminary investigation body has defined it both at the trial and in its of indictment in such a manner that it confuses the reader at first sight. It is mentioned, in particular, that Vardan Hovhannisyan’s guilt was grounded by the fingerprint found at the scene. Whereas this fingerprint has nothing to do with the surfaces that were in direct contact with the robbery – doors, windows, handles etc. – besides Georgi Margaryan, the store guard, communicated in his original testimony that all the perpetrators had worn gloves. Besides, it is illogical that one goes to rob and during that turns over the pages of a catalogue.
“The preliminary investigation body, clearly realizing all this, but being restrained by the fact that it had brought this charge against Vardan Hovhannisyan, although those circumstances had been denied afterwards, tried to adapt the case by any means, in order that some connection with Vardan Hovhannisyan was established and the case was sent to the court and assigning the case to Judge L. Avetisyan was a great victory of the preliminary investigation body, since there hasn’t been a single case so far when Mr. L. Avetisyan acquitted anyone.
“And in this case we deal with a citizen of the Russian Federation who hasn’t committed any crime and no evidence has proved his guilt.”
At the very beginning of the court session, the counselor filed a motion to disqualify Judge L. Avetisyan. However, the motion was rejected.
Another interesting fact – the preliminary investigation body arrested Vardan Hovhannisyan and submitted a fact to the court at the very beginning that he had been convicted of robbery before and two fingerprints had been found at the scene. However, afterwards the counselor reasoned that Vardan Hovhannisyan had never been convicted before and had an impeccable reputation, after which the preliminary investigation body admitted its mistake and justified itself saying that it had been a result of name confusion.
In the counselor’s words, another paradox of the preliminary investigation body in the given criminal case was that the indictment ostensibly proved to whose rented apartment the stolen safe had been moved, however, not only has the renter of that apartment not been involved as an accused, but he has also not been interrogated as a witness.
LUSINE BUDAGHYAN
