“The ‘internal watch’ investigation and search action taken against human rights activist Marina Poghosyan was lawful”; this position was expressed by H. Aslanyan, Deputy RA Prosecutor General, in his decision of October 16, 2017 on rejecting the complaint of A. Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, against taking such action. Note that the court ruled to take investigation and search actions against M. Poghosyan on September 14, 2015 when she was involved in the criminal proceedings as a witness and questioned in the status of a witness.   Whereas, according to the RA Law on Investigation and Search Actions, the said investigation and search action may be taken only against a person suspected of committing grave or extremely grave crimes, and it is impossible to get the necessary information in any other way. Moreover, in response to M. Poghosyan’s inquiry on taking ‘internal watch’ investigation and search action against her, A. Asatryan, acting head of the RA Police General Department for Criminal Investigation, provided obviously false information by stating that as of the inquiry date, August 17, 2016, no such action was taken against her. M. Poghosyan learnt about it later in August 2017 during the trial examination of the criminal proceedings illegally initiated against her. HCA Vanadzor filed a complaint with the RA Prosecutor General’s Office on taking ‘internal watch’ investigation and search action against M. Poghosyan illegally and against the RA SIS decision of September 19, 2017 on rejecting initiation of criminal proceedings based on the report on false reply to the inquiry. In its reply, G. Margaryan, acting investigator for high-profile cases at the RA SIS, saw no elements of crime either in the police actions, or in the actions of HCA Vanadzor Chairman A. Sakunts in terms of false statement under Article 333, RA Criminal Code. In its complaint to the Prosecutor General, HCA Vanadzor qualified it as a means of exerting pressure on the human rights activist to hold him back from voicing the crime. By his decision of rejecting the complaint of A. Sakunts, H. Aslanyan, Deputy RA Prosecutor General, asserted SIS Investigator G. Margaryan’s statement that the terms “suspected” and “suspect” were not the same. According to him, the latter is only a private manifestation of the former. And a person may be suspected of committing a crime, but have no procedural status of a “suspect”. It is noteworthy that the RA Deputy Prosecutor General explained by a mistake the fact that the RA Police provided M. Poghosyan with false information on taking ‘internal watch’ investigation and search action. He mentions that the RA Police General Department for Criminal Investigation provided information only about the actions taken by the Department; they simply missed the abbreviation ‘GDCI’ in the letter which, according to him, gave rise to confusion; “there was no intent in doing so and it cannot be considered a formal fraud.” The Deputy RA Prosecutor General also considered groundless the argument on initiating criminal prosecution on false statement against the human rights activist who filed the report, considering that “giving a legal assessment to the action of the person who filed a report is well-grounded and legal”. HCA Vanadzor will appeal before court the Deputy RA Prosecutor General H. Aslanyan’s decision of October 16, 2017 on rejecting the complaint.

Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այստեղ՝ http://hcav.am/en/events/prosecutors-office-clarifies-in-response-to-human-rights-activist-marina-poghosyans-inquiry-police-did-not-provide-false-information-but-rather-just-miss/ © 1998-2016 Հելսինկյան Քաղաքացիական Ասամբլեայի Վանաձորի գրասենյակ

Operative-intelligence Activities

General-Department-of-Police-Criminal-Investigation-eng

Confidential_decision

The secret police officers recorded the conversation of the chairwoman of the “Veles” rights defender non-governmental organization Marina Poghosyan with her former close friend Arpi Meras. On September 11, 2015, Arpi Meras, after she had arrived from Canada, after a long break, finally met Marina Poghosyan, and their conversation was secretly recorded both at the café and at Poghosyan’s own place.

To recap, two months before the meeting with Poghosyan, a report on a crime had been submitted on behalf of Arpi Meras to the former Chief of Police of Yerevan, Ashot Karapetyan. Meras blamed her old friend for having sold her own apartment without having her permission. After she had got acquainted with the report, Marina Poghosyan called tens of times to Meras for explanation, but the latter did not intentionally respond to her calls because, as Meras herself stated in the court, she had been advised to do so.

Marina Poghosyan claimed that if she had deceived Arpi Meras, she would not make so many calls to speak to her. “Normally, cheaters flee, not victims. “If I had fooled Arpi and she had suffered because of me, she would have called me and shamed me, and not avoided answering my calls”, said Marina Poghosyan.

In August 2015, Arpi Meras arrived in Armenia, and in September, she finally decided to meet Marina Poghosyan. On September 11, in the afternoon, the former close friends decided to meet in one of the cafés near the Cascade. Marina Poghosyan herself chose the café and sent Arpi Meras an SMS message about her whereabouts. Meras arrived about 30 minutes later. Later it turned out that Meras was not alone but with some secret agents who then secretly recorded the conversation between the two women they had in an open-air café.

But the secret operation was not limited to that. Meras and Marina decided to go together to Marina Poghosyan’s apartment for the lady from Canada to see how Poghosyan had reconstructed it. The secret agents recorded their conversation inside the apartment, too.

It is interesting that in the criminal case the copy of the decision on the permission by the court on conducting operative-investigative activities against Marina Poghosyan had been missing for a long time, even when the case was tried in court. The court decision on the operation carried out on 11 September 2015, was only emerged in July 2017, when Marina Poghosyan, who was already in the status of a defendant, demanded to provide the legal grounds for conducting the operative-investigative activities.

From the document provided by Poghosyan it was evident that the motion for conducting operative-investigative activities had been filed personally by the First Deputy Chief of Police, Hunan Poghosyan, who thus violated the presumption of innocence of Marina Poghosyan while writing in his motion literally the following: “Taking into consideration that Marina Poghosyan participated in the commitment of the crime and yet she concealed this information from the investigation …” It should be noted that on September 11, Marina Poghosyan was not questioned by the preliminary investigation body, and before that, on July 29, she only gave an explanation, when the criminal case had not been initiated yet.

Based on the report by Arpi Meras, the criminal case was initiated only on August 17, and a month later, the Deputy Chief of Police already wrote that it was already clear who the perpetrator was; moreover, she concealed information, so an operative-investigative activity of “Internal observation” should have been conducted against her.

“In fact, our law enforcement bodies were so much interested in me that they even recorded me in my apartment thus violating my right to respect for family life. What would they have discovered for which they have made so much effort; at least would it have been revealed that I had fooled Arpi? Actually, they sent the secret agents to my place for this private dispute. It turns out that they have no other thing to do in this country, but to wiretap a human rights defender. They work the way, that is why a whole regiment was seized overnight, and no one had been aware of that…”, said Marina Poghosyan during the talk with “Arajin Lratvakan” (the “First News” Agency).

There is another remarkable fact in the motion filed by the Deputy Chief of Police: Hunan Poghosyan actually “guessed” that an hour later Marina Poghosyan was going to meet Arpy Meras, he also “guessed” about the meeting site, i.e. the “Baskin Robins” bar-café, and he could also have supposed that after that they would go to Poghosyan’s place together.

From deciphering Marine Poghosyan’s phone calls it became clear that Meras called her on September 11, at 13:39, and at 14:22 she sent an SMS to Marina via Poghosyan’s phone number by indicating the exact location of the meeting. Yet, according to the documents, about two hours before, at 12:45 pm, Hunan Poghosyan had already filed a motion to the Court of the First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts, pointing out exactly where Poghosyan was going to be recorded.

“How could the Deputy Chief of Police have guessed that Arpine and I would go to my place? Don’t they say that I cheated Arpi; and if I had fooled her, why should she have come to my place? This again comes to prove that they secretly recorded us without any permission by the court, and when I inquired, they just prepared a back-date document”, said Marina Poghosyan.

Let us mention that the recordings made in such conditions have been put as proofs on the basis of the criminal case brought against Marina Poghosyan. Marina Poghosyan is being accused of embezzling a particularly large amount of money (Article 179, part 3, point 1 of the RA Criminal Code) and she faces 5-8 years of imprisonment if found guilty.

During the previous court hearing, the advocate of Poghosyan, Liparit Simonyan, filed a motion to Mnatsakanyan Martirosyan, the judge of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts, to recognize the secret recordings obtained in the result of operative-investigative activities, as inadmissible proofs and the data obtained as a result of those actions untrustworthy. First of all, the lawyer mentioned that the proofs were obtained through a violation of law, besides, the recording was not audible. The court will announce its decision on the motion at the next court hearing, which is scheduled for November 15, at 14:00.

Can a person in the status of a suspect be wiretapped?

Human rights defender Artur Sakunts thinks that in September 2015, an operative-investigative activity of “Internal observation” against Marina Poghosyan could not be conducted because she had not had a status of a suspect within the frames of the criminal case yet. Sakunts appealed to the RA Prosecutor General stating that the decision on conducting an “Internal observation” was made through violating Article 31 of the RA Constitution, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 31, Part 4 of the RA Law on “Operative Investigative Activity”. The human rights defender requested the RA Prosecutor General to institute a criminal case and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The human rights defender noted that according to the RA Law on “Operative Investigative Activity”, operative-investigative activities can be conducted only when the person against whom they are held is suspected of committing a grave and especially grave crime. And according to Article 62, part 1, of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the suspect is a person who 1) has been arrested because of being suspected of having committed a crime, 2) against whom a decision on choosing a preventive measure has been made before an accusation is initiated. In September 2015, Marina Poghosyan was not either arrested or a decision on choosing her preventive measure was made.

Yet, the RA Police does not agree with Arthur Sakunts. The Head of Internal Security Department A. V. Hakobyan sent a letter to Sakunts stating that his application addressed to the Prosecutor General was discussed at their department. The Police Colonel writes that by interpreting the term “is suspected” in the RA Law on “Operative-Investigative Activity” it is evident that it is not identical with the term “suspect” defined by the RA Criminal Procedure Code.

In other words, the RA Police thinks that operative-investigative activities can be carried out against any person suspected of committing a serious crime, but has not got a status of a suspect yet. Marina Poghosyan thinks that the police have thus found the way of suppressing human rights defenders.

“It comes out from the response of the Police that they can wiretap and record anybody who has been reported on. At the same time, it does not matter whether the report is grounded, without any proofs, and without even any questioning, they can consider that the person is suspected of a serious crime and thus initiate operative-investigative activities against him or her, entering their places, wiretapping their private conversations. In fact, none of us are safe, even inside the walls of our own homes”, said the president of the “Veles” NGO.

It should be stated that the appeal by Artur Sakunts on initiating a criminal case was denied; the human rights defender appealed the decision in hierarchical order; yet the Prosecutor’s Office rejected the appeal. In the interview with the “Arajin Lratvakan” Artur Sakunts mentioned that he was going to appeal the decision on refusing to initiate a criminal case also in the forensic order.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2233768.html

Former advisor to the RA Minister of Justice Bagrat Ghazinyan has been involved as a prosecutor of the case of Marina Pogosyan, the President of the “Veles” rights defender NGO. Let us recall that the two prosecutors involved in the case before him could not succeed in bringing the charge against Poghosyan to the end for a variety of reasons. Bagrat Ghazinyan arrived at the court and “changed” the accusation against Poghosyan. This change, however, did not refer to the deed Poghosyan was blamed in, but just made some clarification in the accusation filed against her.

The point is that Marina Poghosyan was accused of embezzling the real estate owned de jure by Canadian-Armenian Arpi Meras and of the sum obtained as a result of its sale. That is to say, according to the charge, a piece of property was only defalcated, but Poghosyan was ascribed double defalcation, that of the property and the money received for its sale. At the first court hearing of the case, Liparit Simonyan, the lawyer of the defendant, had called on the prosecution to decide at last in which Poghosyan had been being blamed. This misunderstanding was corrected only months later, when the third prosecutor in number was involved in the case.

While charging a “new” accusation against Poghosyan, the former advisor of the Minister of Justice was based on the old charge, invoking the materials of the preliminary investigation and the facts obtained during the trial. During the previous court session, Marina Poghosyan responded to the accusation she was charged with, claiming that the prosecutor had not simply got acquainted with the materials of the case and brought facts which did not correspond to the reality.

“Bagrat Ghazinyan’s decision consists of 245 lines, of which 205 are obviously false, which I will prove with concrete fact,- stated the founder of the “Veles” NGO,- First, both contextually and legally, the very document provides grounded suspicions whether it has been drafted by the candidate of law, lecturer, first-class adviser of justice Bagrat Ghazinyan, as a person with such titles and educational background might not have compiled such an absurd document which has nothing to do with the preliminary investigation and, what is important, with a trial lasted more than eight months, in which all the facts and evidence were misrepresented during the trial, the testimonies of the invited witnesses were falsified both in the content and legal terms”.

Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan urged Marina Poghosyan to make her position known without any personal insult, to which Poghosyan responded: “If it is a lie, shouldn’t I say that it is?!”. Yet, Poghosyan had to change some of the expressions in her speech or skip them so that they were not acknowledged as offensive.

“Prosecutor Bagrat Ghazinyan ignored the course of the whole trial, the testimonies given during the trial, the presented evidence, thus in fact bringing to naught the role of the court in the sense of implementation of justice, by which not only my right to fair trial was violated, but also an obviously biased and neglecting attitude was shown, and a conviction was created that, not dependent from the investigation, testimonies and proofs brought in the court, I must be convicted. This once again proves the fact of this criminal case being a political order against me as a human rights defender and aimed at silencing me by means of illegal criminal prosecution and at discrediting me personally”, said Marina Poghosyan.

According to her, the RA Investigative Committee and the RA Prosecutor’s Office used their resources and hooks so that she could no longer have the opportunity to publicize the proofs of involvement of a number of workers of the Prosecutor’s Office in corruption-related deals, money laundering of a huge amounts of sums obtained from offshore companies. “They have been using the case initiated against me as a sanction against me as a human rights defender, who does not close her mouth, to extort money from me by such obviously false, continuously changed and edited charges”.

The human rights defender stated there were customers behind this case, and all the people engaged in the case were linked to the customer through various ties – a well-known person in the Republic of Armenia. She pointed out that the investigation body acquired deciphering of her telephone calls during April-August 2015, which had nothing to do with the charge against her because, according to the charge, she still sold the controversial apartment in 2014. “This is another proof of why the case was made against me, as it was since April of 2015 our organization uncovered a corruption scandal involving prosecutors, and of course, deciphering of those months were of interest to the customer who I will still refer to”, Marina Poghosyan said.

The human rights defender did not consider it accidental that the report against her was sent from Canada to Ashot Karapetyan, the former Chief of Police. “We are all aware of Ashot Karapetyan’s hobby to suppress activists and human rights defenders, and about his direct relation with the owner of this case I will speak in the future.” Marina Poghosyan claimed that the only purpose of the criminal prosecution initiated against her since 2015 was to obstruct her professional activities and to make her silence. “But let me say that your efforts are in vain; I will not keep silent, moreover, I have collected even more facts during this period and I will definitely publicize them”, Poghosyan announced in the court.

The human rights activist recalled that based on the investigation carried out by her organization and the report filed by them a criminal case was initiated in 2015 on the grounds of embezzled $ 5 million by the former RA Prosecutor General Suren Osipov’s family. “This is one of the main reasons that this case has been set against me, and on which there are chronological and other facts as evidence, and clear links between Yerevan City investigative structure and people directly involved in the case scenario, whose names I am still going to highlight”. In Marina Poghosyan’s opinion, it was not a coincidence that Lusine Martirosyan, advocate of the Osipovs, inquired the head of the Yerevan Investigative Department and the head of the Arabkir Investigation Department on April 28, 2016, to clarify her procedural status and the process of preliminary investigation.

As for Canadian-Armenian Arpi Meras, the one who had informed against her, Poghosyan noted that the 81-year-old woman just became a tool in the hands of those who wanted to make her silent. “I am sorry that Arpi has been serving only a tool in this case, and the apartment in 50/42 Nalbandyan Street was just a means based purely on the fact that it was the state registration address of “Veles” rights defender NGO. It is impossible to ignore this link”, the human rights defender stated.

Marina Poghosyan touched on her “new” accusation line by line, bringing counter-arguments that we will cover in our upcoming articles.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2231473.html

http://www.1tv.am/hy/program/videos/%D4%B1%D5%BC%D5%A1%D5%BB%D5%AB%D5%B6-%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%B2%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%A1%D6%80#video74492-Առաջին տաղավար. Խաբեության ճանապարհով

No criminal proceedings were initiated based on HCA Vanadzor’s report on illegal investigation and search actions against human rights defender Marina Poghosyan.   We were informed of this from the RA Special Investigation Service decision of September 19, 2017. Note that the ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action taken against Marina Poghosyan is a type of investigation and search actions through which law enforcement representatives follow the person, control his/her activity in his/her apartment and record the findings. This can be done with and without special technical devices. Moreover, according to the RA Law on Investigation and Search Actions, investigation and search actions may be taken only when a person is suspected of committing a grave or extremely grave crime, and it is impossible to get the necessary information through any other way. The court made a decision on taking investigation and search actions against Marina Poghosyan on September 14, 2015 when she was involved in the criminal proceedings as a witness and had no status of a suspect. Marina Poghosyan learnt about the action taken against her no sooner than in August, 2017, during the trial examination of the criminal case initiated against her illegally. And in response to Marina Poghosyan’s inquiry of August 17, 2016, A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, stated that no ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action was taken against her. On August 15, 2017, A. Hakobyan, Colonel of Police and Head of the Internal Security Department of the RA Police, responded to HCA Vanadzor’s crime report to the RA Prosecutor General. He considered it lawful that ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action was taken against Marina Poghosyan who had no status of a suspect, stating that concepts of “suspect” and “suspected” were not the same. On August 22, 2017 HCA Vanadzor applied to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office for the second time and expressed its position that the RA Police is not the institution to respond to the crime report addressed to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office and demanded to provide the decision based on the report. Then the decision of the RA Special Investigation Service of September 19, 2017 on refusing to initiate criminal proceedings was received.   In that decision, G. Margaryan, acting investigator of high-profile cases at the RA SIS, saw no elements of crime either in the police actions, or in the actions of HCA Vanadzor Chairman A. Sakunts in terms of false statement under Article 333, RA Criminal Code. Moreover, he explained the wrong answer A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, provided to Marina Poghosyan’s inquiry by the fact that it concerned only the units of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence of the RA Police. It turns out that to get full information, one should apply to separate units of the RA Police one by one which is beyond reasonable thinking. On October 3, 2017 A. Sakunts, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor, filed a complaint with the RA General Prosecutor’s Office noting that the body conducting the proceedings did not conduct an effective investigation. And involving the human rights defender in criminal prosecution and starting indirect criminal prosecution against him in the absence of any criminal case on false statement aims to put pressure on him to avoid voicing the crime, especially given that the absence of any element of crime is only assumed by the body conducting the proceedings as no relevant investigation was carried out.

Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այստեղ՝ http://hcav.am/en/events/no-criminal-proceedings-initiated-on-human-rights-defender-marina-poghosyans-case-hcav-filed-a-complaint-to-the-prosecutors-office/ © 1998-2016 Հելսինկյան Քաղաքացիական Ասամբլեայի Վանաձորի գրասենյակ

79-year-old Zinaida Gyozalyan has got deprived of her last residence for four years and is now living with her family in a rented place. All are women in the family; years ago, they used to work in a clothes store situated in Abovyan street, in the center of Yerevan, and they also lived in the store site. On March 17, 2014, some officers of the Judicial Acts Compulsory Enforcement Service of the RA Ministry of Justice entered the store and expelled violently Zinaida Gyozalyan and others. From the day until now, Zinaida’s granddaughter, who was named after her grandmother, has been trying to restore the family’s violated rights.

To invest in the family business, in 2009, 31-year-old Zinaida Melikyan took a sum of about $ 16,000 at interest rate from her acquaintance. Unable to pay the money back, she again took more money from another person. The interest was accumulated and the debt approached to $ 100,000. There raised a need to pledge the housing store. Yet, instead of a pledge, Zinaida signed a real estate buy and sale deal with which the housing store transferred to the former head of the RA Civil Aviation Hovhannes Yeritsyan.

“Artak Martirosyan is the mediator of interest-giving people, and it was he who introduced me to Hovhannes Yeritsyan and said that he was a normal person, he would give the sum at interest rate of 10%, and you should give another 10% as a commission fee. I agreed, took 100,000 dollars, and Yeritsyan said that he did not stay in Armenia and that interest should be paid to his godchild, Vahe Vardanyan”, told Zinaida Melikyan.

Let us recall that according to Article 213 of the RA Criminal Code, to lend money at interest rate is usury if lent at a rate of more than 2% a month and is punished by fines or imprisonment.

According to Zinaida, she paid $ 10,000 a month for three months, and when she was not able to find the sum to pay, Vahe Vardanyan suggested that she should find another person who might lend her some money. “Vahe said, that Yeritsyan was a dangerous person, and that you had to pay the principal sum and the interest. I told Artak and Vahe to find someone else who might give some money at a low interest rate, and they introduced me to Artavazd Aivazyan”.

Zinaida told us that in order to pay the principal sum she had borrowed from Yeritsyan, together with the interest and the commission fee she had to borrow $ 127,000 from Artavazd Ayvazyan. “Artavazd Ayvazyan gave me the money at interest rate of 5% a month, and as a result of a fake sale contract on buy and sell of the store, this time it was passed from Hovhannes Yeritsyan to Artavazd Ayvazyan”, said Zinaida Melikyan. In 2012, as the real estate owner Artavazd Ayvazyan applied to court with a demand of evicting the family from Abovyan 38/1 address, which was then implemented in 2014.

“It turned out that Yeritsyan and Ayvazyan were close friends, they both assured me that they applied to the court for their safety, and that they would return the store back to me as soon as I had paid the debt and the interest; yet in 2014 we were forcedly expelled from our store, where we also lived”, told Zinaida. As she said, Hovhannes Yeritsyan demanded that she should pay $ 170,000 and buy the store back. Zinaida did not agree as the borrowed principal sum was $ 127,000.

“I was caught in a quarrel 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, no-one can say anything to me, be seated calm”, recalled Zinaida.

In February 2014, Zinaida reported to the police, informing that Hovhannes Yeritsyan and Artavazd Ayvazyan had taken possession of their store through fraud and usury as well as that Yeritsyan had threatened her with weapons. A criminal case was initiated at the investigative department of the Kentron Administrative District. During the investigation of the criminal case for about a year and a half, Zinaida Melikyan was not recognized as a victim, but as a witness participating in the preliminary investigation.

When Hovhannes Yeritsyan was informed that Zinaida had given testimony in the investigative department, he cursed and threatened her during their phone talk. “What have you written, hey, you brute? I’ll … your mom, piecemeal. To the mother who has thought you … and to you too …” By the way, the recording of the spoken phone conversation is available on the Internet.

The former official did not deny swearing at the young lady. “I swore, only it was little; I will regularly swear”, said Yeritsyan stating that at the beginning of their phone conversation, Zinaida was the first to swear at him. Hovhannes Yeritsyan claimed that he did not give Zinaida a sum at interest rate, but just bought her real estate for $ 100,000 and months later sold it back to Zinaida. “She asked me to sell the store back to her and she would sell it for a bigger sum to someone else. I said I had no problem”. As to Yeritsyan’s word, that was how the real estate went to Artavazd Ayvazyan.

The Prosecutor’s Office protects Yeritsyan’s interests in every way

Initiated on the fact of usury in 2015, the criminal case was dismissed, and Zinaida Melikyan complaint against the decision of the dismissal with the support of the “Veles” rights defender organization. The Prosecutor’s Office did not make a decision on the complaint, and was satisfied simply submitting a written response. The citizen applied to the court asking to abolish the inactivity of the Prosecutor’s Office and to oblige the Prosecutor’s Office to make a decision on the presented appeal.

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

Yet, the Prosecutor’s Office made a decision of leaving Zinaida Melikyan’s complaint without investigation, reasoning that the citizen missed the seven-day deadline for an appeal. The problem is that the investigative body sent Zinaida Melikyan the decision on the dismissal of the criminal case on Friday, July 17, 2015. The envelope was delivered to Zinaida only on Monday, July 20. Six days 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 acquaintance with the decision, when the investigative body handed the envelope to the post-office.

“They had sent an ordinary letter, it was not either registered or by return, that was why it was not recorded when the envelope was actually given to the citizen”, the lawyer Artur Sukiasyan said in his talk to the “Arajin Lratvakan”. In his opinion, as law does not oblige the investigating authorities to send decisions through a registered letter (through the addressed postal delivery service), investigators often send ordinary letters in which case it becomes impossible to record when exactly it reaches the citizen.

To eliminate the refusal of the Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds of leaving the term of the complaint, Zinaida Melikyan filed a complaint to the Court of First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts, demanding at the same time the termination of the decision of the criminal case. The judge Bektashyan publicized today the decision on the appeal, by which Zinaida Melikyan’s complaint was partially satisfied. By the decision of the court, the Prosecutor’s Office should study the citizen’s complaint. It is not excluded that the Prosecutor’s Office is going to appeal the decision to higher instances, too.

It is noteworthy that complaints of any case related to Hovhannes Yeritsyan have been lasting for years; the Prosecutor’s Office does its best to avoid making any decision on the submitted complaints, and, in the case of a decision, they of course reject citizens’ claims. Meanwhile, families deprived of their last shelter have to rent a place to live, and it has been lasting for years.

Let us recall, other citizens have also reported against the former chief of the RA Civil Aviation. The “Arajin Lratvakan” has highlighted the cases of Gayane Tumasyan and David Stepanyan, who accuse the former official of fraud, usury and voicing threats. They have also been deprived of their real estate as a result of a deal with the former official.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2220651.html

Although a number of families have been accusing Hovhannes Yeritsyan, the former chief of the Armenian Civil Aviation Department, of usury, fraud, and addressing life threats, the RA Prosecutor’s Office simply refuses to investigate any case that may result in an accusation against a former official.

One of the appealers, who filed a complaint against Yeritsyan, is a former businessman, David Stepanyan, who claims he took $ 900,000 dollars from the former official and paid him back nearly $ 2 million dollars, but the latter did not pay any taxes from the income. The prosecutor Narek Khachatryan thinks that the former chief of the RA Civil Aviation Department Hovhannes Yeritsyan is not an economic entity, consequently the question of the tax evasion by him has not been subject to investigation by the preliminary investigation body.

And where from the former official has got so much money, here is what the preliminary investigation body “has found out”: “During the preliminary investigation Hovhannes Yeritsyan testified that he had worked in different countries, also in Canada and Australia, for about ten years, and his annual wages made about $ 150.000 dollars”, declared the prosecutor.

Davit Stepanyan’s assignee Marina Poghosyan, the president of the “Veles” human rights defender non-governmental organization, raised the question whether the testimony of Yeritsyan on having worked abroad was verified by the preliminary investigation body. “Unlike you, we have checked and found out that Yeritsyan was mostly in Armenia during the past 10-15 years. If the man had worked abroad, he could have submitted documents, including that on the size of the wages”, Poghosyan mentioned. The question was not answered.

The judge of the Court of Appeal, Papoyan, asked the prosecutor whether any legal assessment on money gain, money laundering, illegal entrepreneurship, and the tax evasion was given at the preliminary investigation stage. The prosecutor mentioned that no criminal prosecution was carried out at the stage of preliminary investigation, as there was not any ground for that.

Let us remind that David Stepanyan presented a report on crime from abroad, which said that Yeritsyan had been threatening him, so he had to leave Armenia. Stepanyan submitted to the preliminary investigation body a recording which can read how the former official demanded money from him, saying that otherwise “blood could be shed”. The criminal case was quashed shortly afterwards.

David Stepanyan appealed the decision on the quash of the criminal case. The Kentron and Nork-Marash Court of General Jurisdiction satisfied the appeal. The Prosecutor’s Office did not put up with the defeat and appealed the decision. However, the Court of Appeal refused the prosecutor’s appeal, leaving in force the decision of the Court of General Jurisdiction. The prosecutor filed a complaint to the Court of Cassation.

It is worth mentioning that the former official has not ever presented himself in any court session; instead the Prosecutor’s Office has been doing their best to defend his interests.

We would like to mention that we managed to contact a family who moved to the Russian Federation, and who had to sell everything in Armenia in order to pay the interests on the borrowed money. David Stepanyan told the “Arajin TV” news agency that he first met Hovhannes Yeritsyan in 2001 when he headed the Civil Aviation of Armenia. Stepanyan had foreign currency exchange offices in Yerevan and asked for money from Hovhannes Yeritsyan in order to invest in business. “I took $ 150.000 dollars with 2% per month. Then I took some again and the debt slowly became $ 900,000 dollars. I paid more than $ 2 million dollars within 10 years”, Stepanyan assures.

During these years Stepanyan has been deprived of both family business and his and his mother’s apartments. “I pledged apartments, paid $ 500.000 dollars to him, but I did not take any receipt from him; our families were in close relations. But now Yeritsyan says as if I should have to pay him  900.000 dollars”, tells David Stepanyan.

In 2015 Hovhannes Yeritsyan applied to the Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts, demanding to levy money from David Stepanyan and his wife. The former official informed the court that in 2010 the defendants were lent a loan of 360 million Armenian drams. “Those 360 million made $ 900.000 dollars by the rate of that time. I was obliged to pay that much by a notary”, says David Stepanyan.

The court decided to confiscate in favor of Hovhannes Yeritsyan 250.000.000 (two hundred fifty million) Armenian drams from David Stepanyan and Gayane Abgaryan, through a coherence order. According to Stepanyan, five years ago he had a severe depression, and he is still unable to get rid of it. The former businessman assures that Hovhannes Yeritsyan has been threatening and intimidating him for years.

Hovhannes Yeritsyan denies not only David Stepanyan’s accusations, but also the charges submitted against him by other families, stating that he has not made any illegal deal.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2213442.html

On September 16, 2017, the ”Veles”  human rights non-governmental organization visited Vanadzor within the framework of the project of   ”Combating Corruption – Strengthening Democracy”.

The aim of the visit was not only to present our organization’s program for 2017-2018, but also to organize discussions with law enforcement officials, journalists, human rights defenders, victims of usury and other types of corruption crimes within the framework of the subject matter. Representatives of the law enforcement system did not break the tradition, and as usual, did not appear, yet that did not hinder to have a fairly effective meeting.

Representatives of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office, the ”Helsinki Association”, the  ”Human Rights Power”, Lori Regional Branch of the ”Armenian Lawyers` Association”, local TV companies and journalists, as well as individuals suffered from corruption crimes attended the meeting.

During the meeting, the report-research of ”Usury as  Perverse  Manifestation of Corruption” developed by the ”Veles”  NGO was presented, too.

At the end of the meeting, in order to make it more effective, the ”Veles” NGO and the participants made some arrangements aimed at combating jointly corruption and its manifestations.

Though the investigation of the case against the human rights defender Marina Poghosyan came to the final stage, and the prosecutor was to make his accusatory speech, at the last hearing the prosecution unexpectedly summoned a new witness for interrogation. And though Marina Poghosyan’s lawyer had objected to the motion, the court satisfied the motion, and soon the witness was already in the court. The word is about Narine Baghdasaryan who lives in the building where the apartment being the subject matter is located and is the owner of the beauty salon also located in the same building.

“Mrs. Arpi, why have you invited me here today”, Narine Baghdasaryan asked the injured party, and in response to which Meras said that she had not invite her. Although the accusing party was interested in bringing Narine Baghdasaryan to court, yet the witness confirmed the testimonies given by the defendant Marina Poghosyan and denied the statement of the accusing party, Arpi Meras, saying as if she called the latter two years ago and asked her not to made her involved in the matter because she was afraid of Marina.

Narine Baghdasaryan confirmed that she had called Meras, but insisted that she had not told her that she was afraid of Marina Poghosyan. “I do not deny that I told you not to get me involved in the matter, as I have no obligation towards Mrs. Arpi. And it was natural that I should have complained. But what should I have feared from Marina? I just said that I did not want anything to interfere; I did not say I was afraid of Marina”, the witness asserted.

Narine Baghdasaryan informed that during the preliminary investigation, the investigator called her to invite her to the Investigation Office, where she learnt that Arpi Meras had submitted a report against Marina Poghosyan, which spoke on the sale of her property owned by her. Narine Baghdasaryan informed the court that sometimes they gave her the utility bills of the spoken apartment in order she could then pass them to Marina Poghosyan and, in general, if there was any problem concerning the apartment, she always turned to Poghosyan as she settled all the issues.

It should be noted that the witness did not show readiness to answer questions and often said that the case did not concern her. She also found it difficult to recall certain episodes by saying that she was not obliged to keep in mind events which were not important for her. At the stage of the preliminary investigation Narine Baghdasaryan had given explanations, which contradicted those given to the court. The judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan read the explanations after which Narine Baghdasaryan announced that she simply did not recall the events well, so the testimonies given in the court differed from the information provided during the investigation.

Narina Baghdasaryan had notified in her explanation that she learnt from the poster hanging over the open air balcony of the house that the apartment in question was being sold. And later she found an announcement on one of the webpages. Let us remind that Marina Poghosyan also stated in her testimony that she had hung a large poster on the sale outside the balcony of the apartment in the center of the city, and in 2013 she posted advertisements on sale on some websites of real estate agencies. “Can there be any intelligent person in the world to post a statement on the Internet on the crime which he/she is going to commit”, Marina Poghosyan raised a rhetorical question.

Let us remind that according to the charge, Marina Poghosyan sold the apartment which was de jure ownership of Arpi Meras without her knowledge and assignment and pouched the money from sale. Poghosyan submitted to the preliminary body three notarized letters of attorney by which Arpi Meras had authorized her to sell her apartment. Arpi Meras stated in the court that the powers of attorney were given for its repair and regulations of other problems. But Poghosyan justified by documents that when the first power of attorney was issued, the reconstruction of the apartment had already been completed.

However, the interrogation of the witness did not anyhow help in understanding how well the charge against Poghosyan was justified. Then perhaps Narine Baghdasaryan did not question in vain why she had been invited to court. The case will continue on September 23, at 15:30.

P.S. In one of our articles, we raised the issue of the suspicion on the signatures put in the name of Arpi Meras in the case materials. The defense party pointed out some documents the signatures found in which were obviously inconsistent. The judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan rejected the motion on appointing a forensic handwriting examination. At the last court session, Arpi Meras stated that the different signatures were her own, and the difference was because one of them was in Armenian and the other was in English. Meras brought also her passport to the court to show her signature in it. Marina Poghosyan refused to examine the signature in her passport stating that she was not an expert to check with the naked eye the correspondence of the signatures, and she reminded the court that their motion on the forensic handwriting examination had already been refused. Arpi Meras made other statements too, which we will refer to in our upcoming articles.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2209001.html

Dear Partners,

We are kindly inviting you to the presentation of  ”Combating Corruption – Strengthening Democracy” project and ”Usury as a Perverted Manifestation of Corruption” report-research, organized by the ”Veles” human rights non-governmental organization.

The presentation will take place on September 16, at 14:00, in the Lori regional branch office of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association. Address: 82 Vardanants str., apt. 1, t. Vanadzor; tel.: (374 322) 22317.

Respectfully, ”Veles” human rights  non-governmental organization

On September 11, 2015 the General Jurisdiction Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts sanctioned in gross violation of law provisions conducting ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action against human rights activist Marina Poghosyan. ‘Internal watch’ is a type of investigation and search actions through which law enforcement representatives follow the person, watch his/her activity in his/her apartment and record the findings. This can be done with and without special technical devices. Moreover, according to the RA Law on Investigation and Search Actions, investigation and search activities may be taken only when a person is suspected of committing a grave or extremely grave crime, and it is impossible to get the necessary information through any other way. Whereas, Marina Poghosyan was not involved as a suspect in the criminal case initiated under Article 178(3)(1) (committing extremely large-scale fraud), RA Criminal Code as of August 17, 2015. And some days after the decision to take ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action, on September 14, 2015 she was questioned as a witness and about a month later, on October 19, 2015 L. Yolchyan, investigator at the Investigation Division of Arabkir Administrative District, RA Investigative Committee, decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings due to lack of elements of crime. On July 28, 2016 the discontinued criminal proceedings were reopened and Marina Poghosyan was involved as an accused. In response to Marina Poghosyan’s inquiry of August 17, 2016 on taking ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action against her, A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, answered in his letter of August 26, 2016 that in the period of January 1, 2014 – August 26, 2016, no investigation and search action was taken; in other words, he provided obviously false information. However, according to the court ruling, ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action must be taken within a 5-day period; this means that it might not be postponed and must have been taken back in September 2015. Marina Poghosyan learnt about the action taken against her no sooner than in August, 2017, during the trial examination of the criminal case initiated against her illegally. On July 17, 2017 HCA Vanadzor filed a relevant crime report with the RA Prosecutor General’s Office.   Instead of making a decision based on the crime report, the RA Prosecutor General’s Office sent it to the Internal Security Department of the RA Police without informing the Organization. On August 15, 2017 HCA Vanadzor got a letter signed by A. Hakobyan, Colonel of Police and Head of the Internal Security Department of the RA Police, commenting on the reasons why in response to Marina Poghosyan’s inquiry of August 17, 2016, A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, answered in his letter of August 26, 2016 that no investigation and search action was taken against her. According to A. Hakobyan, the answer concerned only one of the RA Police units, and the General Department for Criminal Intelligence of the RA Police does not keep record of any other units. It should be noted that the response letter of A. Asatryan, acting head of the General Department for Criminal Intelligence, RA Police, of August 26, 2016 does not mention any particular unit but rather the “RA Police Units”. Therefore, A. Hakobyan’s statement is groundless. As for the suspect status, Colonel of Police A. Hakobyan believes that the concepts of “suspect” and “is suspected” are not the same. And he also considers lawful taking ‘Internal watch’ investigation and search action against Marina Poghosyan in her status of witness. On August 22, 2017 HCA Vanadzor applied on this issue to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office for the second time and expressed its position that the RA Police is not the institution to respond to the inquiry addressed to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office and demanded to provide the decision based on the report. The RA Prosecutor General’s Office has not answered yet.

Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այստեղ՝ http://hcav.am/en/events/4-9-17-3-en/ © 1998-2016 Հելսինկյան Քաղաքացիական Ասամբլեայի Վանաձորի գրասենյակ

In part 1 of the series of Articles we referred to the testimonies and documents of Marina Poghosyan, Director of “Veles” non-governmental organisation, by which she proves that testimonies given against her are false. In this publication we shall refer to other documents – particularly the signatures and testimonies of Arpi Meras who was found as a victim – available in the criminal case instituted against the human rights defender.

During the previous court sitting Marina Poghosyan’s advocate Liparit Simonyan filed a motion to the court to assign a handwriting expert examination, to find out who had signed instead of Arpi Meras, as when looking at the signatures put on the documents available in the case even with the naked eye one can see that they differ from each other (see the photo).

It is important to mention, that yet on 29 July 2015, when Marina Poghosyan was called to the Investigation Department to give explanations and saw the signature put under her report,  just in her first explanation she mentioned that the signature did not belong to her long-time friend Arpi Meras. “I did not believe that Arpi could give a report against me, and after seeing the signature I got more convinced that the text was not written by her,”: said the human rights defender during the conversation with “1in.am”.

Meras’s representative Hrant Ananyan and prosecuting prosecutor Nelli Arshafyan rejected the motion. Advocate Hrant Ananyan noted, that there could not be a theoretical motivation for forging a signature, as Arpi Meras had authorised him to sign documents. The advocate announced that he did not make use of the given authorization and did not sign anything instead of Meras, and where the party being defended suspects that a signature was forged, may submit a report on a criminal offense. It is interesting that the party being defended had also doubts concerning the signature on the letter of authorization issued to Ananyan.

Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan rejected the motion to carry out a handwriting expert examination. Let us mention, that the party being defended had also doubts concerning the originality of the two documents available in the case ­– the report and the letter of authorization of the advocate. Meras’s representative Hrant Ananyan confirmed that report on the crime existing in the case and the letter of authorization issued to him were not the originals, they were copies.

In conversation with “1in.am” Poghosyan’s advocate Liparit Simonyan mentioned that the Preliminary Investigation body did not record the original of the report on crime: “The investigator should have recorded that the original had been submitted to him and the copy was attached to the materials of the case. Whereas there is no such a record, thus there is no the original.” Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan announced that at that stage he did not going to refer to the question whether it was possible to institute a criminal case on the basis of a copy or not.

Let us mention that the human rights defender Marina Poghosyan had doubts that not only documents were signed in the name of Arpi Meras, but also that the testimonies were written by someone else. Let’s remind that testimonies of Arpi Meras who knew Western Armenian are written in Eastern Armenian and they are full of legal terms. And though Meras’s testimonies contain the note “Written according to my words” Marina Poghosyan states that her long-term friend does not use such a word-stock.

By the way, when Arpi Meras was being interrogated in the court Marina Poghosyan asked her whether she understood the meaning of the words “odorakich (air conditioner)”, “barni stoyka (bar counter)” and “tyuner (tuner)”, Meras told she did not know such words. Whereas in testimonies written in the course of preliminary investigation “according to her own words” contain these words.

Let us remind that this case started in July 2015 when the Yerevan City Department of the Police of the Republic of Armenia received a report on a criminal offence signed in the name of a Canadian-Armenian Arpi Meras who is the owner of “Arpi Nursery School” functioning in Toronto. It was written in the report that Marina Poghosyan sold the real estate belonging de jure to Arpi Meras without having an authorization for doing it. Even though Poghosyan had submitted three letters of authorization during the preliminary investigation for selling the apartment, an accusation was, nevertheless, brought against her and the case was forwarded to the court.

Marina Poghosyan is accused of embezzlement of particularly large amount (point 1 of part 3 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia) and in case of being found guilty she will face 5-8 years of imprisonment. Canadian-Armenian Arpi Meras who was declared as a victim in the case initiated also a civil case against Poghosyan claiming AMD 57.820.000 from her. Meras states that the apartment had also property, which Poghosyan embezzled too. We shall refer to Meras’s recovery claim, as well as the testimonies given by her relatives in our further publications.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2201292.html