The Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Armenia has applied to the Bar Association of the Republic of Armenia, asking to discuss Tigran Yegoryan’s actions and the issue of using disciplinary measures against him, given the necessity of preventing such actions in the future. The SIS states that Tigran Yegoryan, violating Article 6.1 of the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics, failed to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Defender Act, tried to influence the investigating body using means not provided for by the law and mentioned the latter’s actions in a way not provided for by the law. Referring to the Criminal Procedure Code, the SIS informs that T. Yegoryan, not having the right to turn on a recorder, made a recording etc. www.aravot.am inquire during a conversation with T. Yegoryan whether he deemed the presented facts grounded and how he would describe what had happened. Mr. Yegoryan said to us: “What violation of the law are they talking about? If there is a violation, every violation should be grounded and given a respective assessment. If there is a violation of the law, the law-enforcement body doesn’t need to settle arguments in offices for 44 minutes and then apply to the chief of the
investigation service instead of taking its investigating actions. If there is a violation of the law and their demand is legitimate, the chief doesn’t need to use force. This is obvious even to a kindergarten child.” Continuing, T. Yegoryan stated: “What message are they talking about when in the presence of the person against whom Narine Ismaili, a poll-watcher who has reported on the violation, gives testimony that Anahit Sultanyan, the secretary of the commission, opened the box with her own hand, so that a group of 30 youths could stuff the ballot box. And it is obvious that a witness is being pressured here, and there is an uncompromising treatment toward the witness’s representative. In my opinion, there is no alternative here, and one shouldn’t be a genius to understand what message the investigator is sending to that person.” Talking about the exploitation of the issue of recording, T. Yegoryan stated: “Not only did I act in accordance with the law, I also didn’t use certain possibilities provided for by the law. It is obvious, since the law cannot be interpreted as one desires. If the law makes it possible to record, the criminal procedure doesn’t forbid recording, then it is obvious that I have a right to record. There is no other way of interpreting. We have gone for interrogation three times, and I didn’t record when we first went. After that, it became obvious that when I notice mistakes in the statement, I cannot prove. The investigator says that it wasn’t the case. It’s my word against his. And we know whose word is given the priority when one party is a police officer. I was compelled to record, moreover, during the second interrogation, the recording did not meet with so many obstacles. At that time, the investigator expressed doubts about the genuineness of what Narine was saying. During the third interrogation, realizing that I had recorded the second interrogation and referred to fragments from it, they tried to deprive me of that possibility.” The attorney thinks that the issue of political overtones is deeper. If one considers political overtones in one particular case, the picture will not be complete. However, he also notes: “Anyway, this is an issue of will. If it is stated that there is will to solve all crimes, those related to the electoral processes, in particular, I think that there just cannot be such obstacles in the way of doing that properly. An investigation is in progress, but the tension and opposition to the witness who is giving testimony, has reported on the violation and wants the crime to be solved is just incomprehensible and illogical. And this is done by the Special Investigation Service.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
