Criminal prosecution, arrest and detention of Martun Grigoryan

Lawyer Arsen Babayan writes: “The criminal prosecution, arrest and detention of Martun Grigoryan is also illegal because the mandatory condition of overcoming parliamentary immunity defined by the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure was bypassed.

Thus.

As confirmed by the ECtHR in the Ekle case, the criminal charge (prosecution) is an autonomous concept and does not require an official paper decision. It begins when a person’s condition is “substantially worsened” by law enforcement actions.

– May 11 wiretaps and internal observations.

Although these actions are covert and the individual may not have known about them, they are clear evidence that the state targeted him as an alleged criminal.
On May 24, the investigative body published that wiretapping, thus making MP Martun Grigoryan famous.

– May 22 searches.

This is the turning point. When the deputy’s apartment, office and car were searched on May 22, his condition had clearly and significantly deteriorated. He actually acquired the status of a suspect because that suspicion was aroused in the search warrant decision itself. According to the case law of the ECtHR, a search is a classic example of a substantial exposure of the situation. Therefore, according to the meaning of the Convention, the actual criminal prosecution against the MP began on May 22.

Article 96 of the RA Constitution guarantees that a criminal prosecution against a deputy can be initiated only with the consent of the National Assembly (except for cases of being caught at the time of committing a crime or immediately after).

– The fact that the body implementing the proceedings did not formally make a “decision to initiate public criminal prosecution” until August 2 (when the powers of the 8th convocation of the National Assembly were terminated) is a legal deception.

– The state, well aware of the constitutional requirement to obtain the consent of the National Assembly in order to overcome the status and immunity of a person as a member of parliament, applied a procedural trick. actually carried out all intensive actions aimed at criminal prosecution (wiretapping, search) against the person, but artificially delayed granting official status, waiting for the immunity period to expire (August 2).

– The immunity of the deputy provided by the constitution is intended to protect the deputy not only from the word “accused” written on paper, but from the actual machine of state coercion. Since the actual prosecution began on May 22, the Prosecutor General was required to apply to the National Assembly for permission to prosecute the MP. Failure to do so rendered the entire process illegal.”

—