Within the framework of the case of Hovhannes Yeritsyan, the former head of the RA Civil Aviation, the RA Prosecutor’s Office has wasted the state funds for four years by unnecessarily burdening the courts. Still in 2014, on the fact of usury, a criminal case was filed against Yeritsyan, which shortly afterwards was quashed. Ida Melikyan, the person who reported on the case, has been trying to appeal against the decision.

It is worth mentioning that any appealing of the cases against Hovhannes Yeritsyan lasts for years; the Prosecutor’s Office do their best to avoid decisions on the filed complaints, and, if making a decision, they compulsorily reject the citizens’ claims. Meanwhile, the families deprived of their last shelters have had to rent accommodation, and it lasts for years.

For four years, supported by the “Veles” human rights NGO and the attorney at law Artur Sukiasyan, Ida Melikyan repeatedly filed complaints to the courts of Armenia aimed at restoration of her violated rights. Over the years, seven victories over the Prosecutor’s Office were recorded in courts. The Prosecutor’s Office, however, did not agree with the defeat and the idea that they were obliged to solve the fact of criminal liability of the former official.

Today, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts, under the chairmanship of the judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan, the appeal against the decision of quashing the criminal case in 2015 was examined. The prosecutor Nalbandian declared that the criminal case was examined comprehensively and objectively, and the decision on quashing was a model. Meanwhile, the president of the “Veles” NGO Marina Poghosyan, as the representative of Ida Melikyan, stated that there was no confrontation between the people who had provided contradicting testimonies in the frames of the case, and the origin of sources of the big sums of money the former official possessed was not disclosed.

It should be reminded that other citizens also reported against the former chief of the Civil Aviation. The Arajin Lratvakan (The First News Agency) highlighted the cases of Gayane Tumasyan and David Stepanyan; the latter accused Hovhannes Yeritsyan of fraud, usury and threatening. Like Ida Melikyan, they also lost their real estate as a result of a deal with a former official. Hovhannes Yeritsyan insisted that in all cases he had bought real estates of the citizens conscientiously and that he was slandered.

It should be reminded that as a result of this suspicious buying and selling deal at least three families have found themselves on the street. One of them is the family of Ida Melikyan, who was deprived of her last accommodation in 2014. All the family members are female, they used to run a clothes shop in Abovyan Street in the center of Yerevan years ago, and they also lived in the shop’s area.

To invest in family business, in 2009, 31-year-old Zinaida Melikyan borrowed from an acquaintance of hers about $ 16,000 at an interest rate. Unable to pay the money back, she took more money from another person, again at an interest rate. The interests accumulated, and the debt reached $ 100,000. There raised a need in pledging the accomodation with the shop. The former debtors sent Zinaida to Hovhannes Yeritsyan. But instead of a pledge, Zinaida had to conclude a fictitious real estate purchase and sale agreement, by which the residential building together with the shop passed to the former chief of the RA Civil Aviation, Hovhannes Yeritsyan.

“Artak Martirosyan is a mediator of people who lend money at an interest rate; he introduced me to Hovhannes Yeritsyan saying that he was a normal person, he would give money at an interest rate of 10% and that I should give another 10% as a commission fee. I agreed, took $100,000. Yeritsyan said that he did not stay in Armenia and that I should pay the interests to Vahe Vardanyan”, said Zinaida Melikyan.

It should be reminded that according to Article 213 of the RA Criminal Code, usury is considered as giving money in debt higher than at an interest rate of 2% monthly and which is punished by a fine and imprisonment.

According to Zinaida, she had paid back $ 10,000 per month for three months, and when she was unable to procure money, Vahe Vardanyan suggested finding another person to lend her money. “Vahe said, “Yeritsyan is a dangerous person; you have to pay both the principal sum and the percentages. I told Artak and Vahe to find someone else who would lend me money at a low interest rate, and they introduced me to Artavazd Aivazyan. “

Zinaida told that in order to pay the principal sum together with the sum of the interest rate and the commission fee she had to borrow $ 127,000 from Artavazd Ayvazyan. “Artavazd Ayvazyan gave me the sum at 5% monthly rate, and as a result of a fictitious purchase and sale agreement, this time the store passed from Hovhannes Yeritsyan to Artavazd Ayvazyan,” said Zinaida Melikyan. In 2012, Artavazd Aivazyan, as the real estate owner, applied to the court demanding to evict the family from the apartment at Abovyan 38/1, which was executed in 2014.

“It turned out that Yeritsyan and Ayvazyan were close friends, they both assured me that they had applied to court for safety purposes, and that they were going to return the shop to me after I paid the debt and the interests, but in 2014 we were forcedly expelled from our shop, where we also lived”, told Zinaida. According to her words, Hovhannes Yeritsyan demanded that she should pay $ 170,000 to have the shop back. Zinaida did not agree because the sum she had borrowed was $ 127,000.

“I was caught in a dispute with Artavazd Ayvazyan and Hovhannes Yeritsyan, the latter took the gun out of his bag and threatened me, saying,” I am a general, I will shoot you down, no one can tell me anything, calm down and be sitted”, recalled Zinaida.

In February 2014, Zinaida filed a report to the police informing that Hovhannes Yeritsyan and Artavazd Ayvazyan had taken possession of their apartment-shop through fraud and usury, and that Yeritsyan threatened her with a gun. A criminal case was initiated by the investigative department of the administrative district of Kentron. During the criminal case, the investigation of which lasted about a year and a half, Zinaida Melikyan was not recognized as a victim, but was involved in the preliminary investigation as a witness.

When Hovhannes Yeritsyan was informed about what testimonies Zinaida had provided to the investigative department, he roughly cursed her during the telephone conversation and threatened her, saying: “What have you written on me, hey, you animal? I’ll your mom…, and you… one by one, the one who has taught you…, and you, too…”. By the way, this phone call recording is available on the Internet.

The former official does not deny cursing the young girl. “I cursed little; I will be going on cursing”, said Yeritsyan, noting that Zinaida was the first to curse him during their phone conversation. Hovhannes Yeritsyan claimed that he had not lent the sum to Zinaida at an interest rate but he had just bought her real estate for $ 100,000 and months later he sold it back to Zinaida. “He asked me to give the shop back to him, which he would sell to someone else for a bigger sum. I said, “No questions”. According to Yeritsyan, this is how the real estate went from him to Artavazd Ayvazyan.

The prosecutor’s office protects Yeritsyan’s interests in every way

The criminal case initiated on the fact of usury was quashed in 2015, and Zinaida Melikyan appealed against the decision in support with the “Veles” human rights defender organization. The Prosecutor’s Office did not make any decision on the complaint but sent only a written reply. The citizen applied to the court asking for abolishing the inactivity of the Prosecutor’s Office and obliging the Prosecutor’s Office to make a decision on the submitted complaint.

The Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts satisfied Zinaida Melikyan’s appeal. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, then to the Court of Cassation, but again suffered a defeat in these instances and had to make a decision on the complaint.

Yet, the Prosecutor’s Office made a decision on leaving Zinaida Melikyan’s complaint without examination, on the reason that the citizen had missed the seven-day deadline for appeal. The issue was that the investigative body sent Zinaida Melikyan the decision on quashing the criminal case on Friday, July 17, 2015. The envelope was delivered to Zinaida only on Monday, July 20. Six days later after the receipt of the decision, on July 26, she filed a complaint, but the Prosecutor’s Office considered July 17 as the day of getting acquainted with the decision, when the investigative body handed the envelope to the post.

“They sent an ordinary letter but not an order or a return one, that is why it was not recorded when exactly the envelope had been delivered to the citizen”, said the attorney at law Artur Sukiasyan in his talk with the “Arajin Lratvakan”. In his opinion, as the law does not oblige the investigating authorities to send decisions through an ordered letter (through the postal delivery service), investigators often send ordinary letters; in this case it is impossible to document when exactly it reaches the citizen.

In order to eliminate the refusal of the Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds of the expiration of the term for an appeal, Zinaida Melikyan filed a complaint to the Court of First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts, demanding also to cancel the decision on quashing the criminal case. The court partially satisfied Zinaida Melikyan’s appeal, obliging the Prosecutor’s Office to examine the citizen’s complaint. The decision of the Prosecutor’s Office was again in favour of the former official. And now, Ida Melikyan has to apply to court again for the aim of appealing against the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2289370.html