A few days ago, during a conversation with www.aravot.am, Lusine Hakobyan, the representative of Vahe Avetyan’s legal successor – his father – and the other aggrieved persons, informed that their motion had been denied orally. Today, during a conversation with her, we inquired whether they had received a written denial and on what grounds the motion had been denied. L. Hakobyan replied, “It is a rather groundless document, the motion has been denied groundlessly.”
She went into detail, “There are no grounds, the denial is groundless. It reads that the motion has been completely denied. If it is completely denied, it is not clear why they make references to the part that was taken out of the case and legal and investigative actions mentioned in the motion. Generally, that denial is groundless.”
L. Hakobyan informed that it was the very reason why they would appeal to the prosecution’s office today.
Then the counselor noted, “Although one cannot pin much hope on the prosecutor’s office, since by just sending the case to the court, the prosecutor’s office has violated Article 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads that the prosecutor’s office cannot send the case to the court before solving the issue of the party’s complaint. And in this case, the prosecutor’s office hasn’t waited till we filed a complaint, then it would examine the complaint and afterwards send the case to the court.” L. Hakobyan makes the following assessment of what has happened, “This is about the system’s incomprehensible hurry or very well understandable hurry.”
Read also
In response to our question whether they were convinced that the restaurant’s owner had been informed about the argument between a waiter and a customer, while filing a motion to involve R. Hayrapetyan as a suspect, L. Hakobyan said, “We were not sure and that is why we filed a motion, in order that he was involved and suspicions concerning him were solved, so as he could participate in the trial and he was asked the questions, which he wasn’t asked in the framework of a real preliminary investigation.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
