PRESS RELEASE
The Heritage Party
7 Vazgen Sargsian Street
Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+374 – 10) 27.00.03, 27.16.00 (temporary)
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46 (temporary)
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website:
February 14, 2007
Justice by Instruction: Raffi Hovannisian’s Legal Request Refused Again
Yerevan–On February 13, Judge Vazgen Lalayan of the Central and Nork-Marash
Court of First Instance heard, humored, and, needless to say, denied
Heritage Party founder Raffi K. Hovannisian’s formal complaint. The
complaint was submitted by attorney Zaruhi Postanjian against prosecutor
Karapet Karapetyan of the Department for the Protection of State Interests
of the Armenian Prosecutor General’s office for his refusal, dated November
15, 2006, to institute a criminal case as law and evidence required.
In response to a judicial injunction, dated April 14, 2006, against the
Paronian State Theater–the property owner–for restricting access to Raffi
Hovannisian’s legally leased premises, marshals from the Service for
Mandatory Execution of Judicial Acts (SMEJA) of the Ministry of Justice had
reopened on May 29 the Heritage Party headquarters which, on March 4, 2006,
the theatre unlawfully had locked down.
During the subsequent inspection of the main office, which took place in the
company of SMEJA officials, Heritage staff had noticed that, among other
anomalies, one television set and two computers were turned on and working.
The official laboratory examination that was later ordered by the police
department had concluded that in the late hours of March 8, exactly four
days after party headquarters had been forcibly shut down without a legal
warrant, unidentified individuals had entered in clandestine fashion the
already-locked and sealed premises and, after circumventing the main
computer’s password, gained illegal entry into the party’s database which
contains constitutionally-protected information regarding the party, its
membership rolls, and its activities. Having examined the computer, experts
from the National Bureau of Investigation confirmed in their report to the
police department that the computer had been put in operational mode for
22-24 minutes, hooked up to an external monitor, and connected to a USB-type
memory-bearing flashcard of an unknown brand. In clearer terms, Heritage’s
party information had been stolen.
Though this evidence sufficed for–even mandated–the launch of criminal
proceedings, according to Postanjian, both the Yerevan police department and
the prosecutor’s office of the Central and Nork-Marash communities denied
her legal request for a full investigation into the case of the computer
bandits.
In turn, on October 9, 2006, Raffi Hovannisian and the Heritage Party sent a
complaint to the Republic’s prosecutor general Aghvan Hovsepyan, appealing
the decision of the Yerevan prosecutor’s office not to file criminal charges
in the case of the illegal forcible closure of and break-in to their offices
and computer system in March. Ten days later, on October 19, a formal letter
from Hovsepyan’s deputy confirmed that all decisions of the Central and
Nork-Marash prosecutor’s office had now been revoked, and that an additional
inquiry had been launched by his office. It seemed justice would finally be
served. But that was not to be: on November 15, prosecutor Karapet
Karapetyan of the Department for the Protection of State Interests refused
to institute a criminal case.
It was this refusal which Raffi Hovannisian appealed yesterday at the
Central and Nork-Marash Court of First Instance. But it was apparent from
the beginning that Judge Lalayan, who did not hide his aggressive demeanor,
would be neither sympathetic nor fair. Forbidding any formal objections, he
first endeavored to prove that the letter of authorization introduced to the
Court did not give Zaruhi Postanjian the right to represent Hovannisian.
After the latter’s personal intervention and verbal assurances, however, the
situation was resolved. Yet the judge, who seemed to favor unproductive
arguments, now targeted media representatives and specifically the cameraman
of Photolur News Agency. Though neither petitioner nor respondent raised
objections, the judge demanded that video recording and photography come to
an end. The judge’s constant interruptions and interjections appeared to
bespeak his inner uneasiness and inhibition. All indicators made it clear
that the verdict was predetermined, and the hope for fair trial
irredeemable.
Even so, Raffi Hovannisian opened with a brief summary of the circumstances
surrounding the case and, subsequently, his attorney Zaruhi Postanjian
introduced the complementary facts and legal standards. She insisted on the
manifest presence of corpus delicti and once again pointed to the
evidentiary material supporting the legal claim. Postanjian contended that a
series of crimes had been committed which, pursuant to several articles in
the Armenian Criminal Code, are subject to criminal prosecution. Prosecutor
Karapetyan objected to the complaint, asserting that the prosecutor general’s
office had now prepared new documents and additional examinations and
investigations had been conducted. In line with these findings, he
maintained, when Heritage’s computer system was breached–a fact he did not
refute–its protection system was not tampered with and no information was
actually copied. Specifically since the computer was not physically damaged,
Karapetyan asserted, there are no grounds to institute a criminal case.
It is noteworthy that the additional laboratory examination, far from
yielding information that complemented the findings of the first (as the
respondent maintained), in fact contradicted them. The second examination,
which was performed by one of the same investigators, Tigran Brigalyan, who
took charge of the first, alleged that it was impossible to insist
categorically that the entry into the computer had taken place specifically
on March 9, 2006, at 1:01am. "The time and other data can be altered by the
user," Karapetyan "informed" those present, repeating time and again that
the computer had not contained any special programs, nor was there proof of
damage. He maintained that corpus delicti was absent.
Zaruhi Postanjian then took the floor and asked for a 15-minute recess in
order to get acquainted with the conclusions of the second laboratory
examination that had been ordered by the prosecutor general’s office, but
never forwarded to Raffi Hovannisian. The Court granted the motion and
ordered a brief recess.
Upon resumption of the hearing, Zaruhi Postanjian underscored that there
were substantial discrepancies between the conclusions of the two laboratory
examinations. According to Postanjian, this proved that the second
examination had been conducted for the purpose of disproving the conclusions
of the first, which had inconveniently confirmed the accuracy of the time
and date displayed on the computer. "Considering the marked inconsistencies
between the conclusions of the two examinations, I move that the Court
invite those who have conducted these examinations in order to clarify the
matters dealing with those substantive inconsistencies and other matters
which are of interest to us," Postanjian said. But the Court denied her
request, arguing that the law does not sanction their summons, even if the
intention was to examine additional evidence. The Court likewise denied
Postanjian’s petition to postpone the hearing until the next day.
Prior to the final ruling by the Court, Raffi Hovannisian delivered closing
remarks and once again invited the Court’s attention to the fact that
Central and Nork-Marash Court Judge Edward Avetisyan’s judgment of June 26,
2006 had found that the closure of his offices on March 4, 2006 had been
illegal; almost one year has passed since Heritage was first denied access
to its legally rented office space. What is more, it continues to be denied
its property rights and the chance to liberate its belongings from unlawful
confinement. In Hovannisian’s words, such injustices, which have paralyzed
the party’s normal operations, have taken on a new meaning in the lead-up to
the upcoming parliamentary elections. "I am hopeful that one day soon the
Armenian institutions charged with the carriage of justice will be guided by
the letter and spirit of the law and not by political directives or other
illicit considerations," Hovannisian declared, demanding the restoration of
his constitutional rights as an Armenian citizen.
The Court proceeded summarily to deny Raffi Hovannisian’s claim. "The thing
stands for itself," commented Zaruhi Postanjian.
Founded in 2002, Heritage has regional divisions throughout the land. Its
central headquarters are located at 7 Vazgen Sargsian Street, Yerevan 0010,
Armenia, with telephone contact at (374-10) 580.877, fax at (374-10)
543.897, email at [email protected], and website at
www.heritage.am
www.heritage.am