On August 18, 2017, “Helsinki Association” and “Veles” human rights  NGOs organized a joint visit to Gyumri.

The “Helsinki Association” human rights defender NGO represents in Gyumri the interests of Ruzanna Adanalyan, the legal successor of murdered Artyom Adanalyan, represented by advocates Nina Karapetyants and Arayik Papikyan.

The “Veles” human rights NGO represents in Gyumri the interests of the citizens Torgom Torosyan, Mariam Boyajyan, Amalya Boyajyan, Volodya Kirakosyan, Gayane Kirakosyan, Hovhannes Kirakosyan and Seda Tumasyan, who claimed to be victims of usury by Melaka Sargsyan, a resident of Gyumri. Artur Sukiasyan, the advocate cooperating with “Veles” human rights  NGO, presented the interests of the latters in the court.

The joint visit of two non-governmental organizations aimed at making the process of advocacy of the beneficiaries of these two organizations more effective by joint efforts and at the same time at demonstrating the solidarity of the civil society and clear message to the Armenian law enforcement bodies that the civil society would always be actively participating in the prevention of their illegalities.

On August 18, 2017, at 12:30 p.m., the trial of Ruzanna Adanalyan was held, which was postponed for September 1 of the current year.

Following the court hearing, the representatives of the “Helsinki Association” and “Veles” human rights  NGOs met with the beneficiaries of the “Veles”, Torgom Torosyan, Mariam Boyajyan, Volodya Kirakosyan, and they also visited Amalia Boyajyan, who, in her 81’s, appeared in the danger of the eviction of the only shelter hers, and that was due to Melada Sargsyan.

They held discussions during the joint visit there, after which the heads of the “Helsinki Association” and “Veles” human rights  NGOs visited Shirak Prosecutor’s Office, met with Shirak Deputy Prosecutor Artyom Avetisyan, presented the problems of Kirakosyans, Boyajyans, Tumasyans and Torosyans trying to get precise responses on the following question, whether in case of such large-scale complaints, how it came to be that Melada Sargsyan remained unpunished and the criminal cases initiated against her were continually quashed.

During the conversation, Deputy Prosecutor Avetisyan also agreed that many citizens of Gyumri had been complaining about usury performed by Melada Sargsyan for years and they were well aware of the fact, but many of the precedent decisions of the RA Cassation Court discouraged the Prosecutor’s Office and the latter got deprived of the opportunity to punish Melada Sargsyan according to the law.

As a civil society representative, we consider it to be our duty to support in this situation the advocates who carry out actual human rights activities in their principled struggle against the illegal actons that hinder their professional activities.

We attach great importance to the support of non-governmental organizations to advocates who are part of the civil society and implement important functions for the development of a legal state.

We urge all those who are really concerned about the idea of establishing a legal state, to join the advocates on strike, on September 13.

«Veles» Human Rights NGO

31/08/2017

Marine Melkonyan, Judge of Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Administrative Districts yesterday rejected the motion of Marina Poghosyan, Director of “Veles” non-governmental organisation, on finding as reasonable and retrieving the missed deadline for appealing the judicial act rendered about her.

Marina Poghosyan had a status of a witness and had not been notified about the dismissal of the criminal case, as well as about the appeal brought against the dismissal. She did not take part in the consideration of the appeal, thus neither could appeal the judicial act contradicting her interests. In her motion Poghosyan referred to the decisions of the Court of Cassation which prescribe that a person shall be provided with an opportunity to take part in the consideration of an appeal when the appeal directly concerns the rights and interests of the given person.

We would like to remind, that in July 2015 a criminal case was filed in the Yerevan City Department of the Police of the Republic of Armenia based on the report of Arpi Meras, whereby she blamed Marina Poghosyan for selling the apartment belonging to Meras under the right of ownership without any letter of authorization. On 19 October of the same year the criminal case was dismissed, as Poghosyan submitted to the preliminary investigation body three letters of authorisation certified notarially by which Arpi Meras authorised her to sell her apartment. Hrant Ananyan, advocate of Arpi Meras who was recognised as a victim, appealed the decision on dismissing the criminal case in the Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Administrative Districts. Marina Poghosyan was not notified of the consideration of the appeal, she was not a party to the case and did not have an opportunity to take part in the court sitting.

“Further, when the case entered into the court, only then I got acquainted with the materials of the case and saw, that an appeal had been considered concerning my case without my participation and I had missed the deadline for appealing it, as I was unaware of it”: says Marina Poghosyan.

The advocate draws attention to the circumstance that the appeal considered Judge Levon Avetisyan, the secretary of whose sittings has, from 2008 on, been Yelena Karapetyan, wife of Hrant Ananyan, the advocate bringing the appeal. Poghosyan states that this fully provided a ground to Avetisyan to render a decision on self-recusal as he could not consider an appeal brought by Hrant Ananyan, the husband of his secretary.

The advocate notes, that during consideration of the given appeal his wife was on maternity leave and was not the secretary of that sitting. As a response whereto Marian Poghosyan declares: “By being on maternity leave Yelena Karapetyan does not stop being Hrant Ananyan’s wife and judge Avetisyan’s secretary. That is to say, they held a homey sitting on my case without my participation.”

Marina Poghosyan had submitted to the court Levon Avetisyan’s decision on self-recusal in another case. For this decision just the marital relationships of Ananyan with the secretary of the sitting, as well as personal friendship with judge Avetisyan served as a basis.

Pursuant to Article 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, a judge shall be obliged to recuse himself or herself, where he or she is aware of such facts or circumstances which may give reasonable grounds to suspect his or her impartiality in the given case. The grounds for self-recusal shall include also cases, when the judge has preconceived attitude towards a person who is a party, his or her representative, defender.

It is surprising, that Levon Avetisyan refused another case by actually confessing to having preconceived attitude towards advocate Hrant Ananyan, but did not refuse Marina Poghosyan’s case and granted Hrant Ananyan’s appeal to the detriment of Poghosyan.

In conversation with “1in.am” Hrant Ananyan noted that he was in good relations with everybody, and judge Avetisyan was not an exception: “The peculiarities of that case were not the same. Maybe the judge failed to explain successfully the decision on self-recusal, I was against that decision. The secretary of the sitting is not the worker of the judge, he or she obeys the Chief of Staff and his or her possible friendship with the judge is a ground for self-recusal or recusal directly provided for by law. In the given case the fact that previously my wife was the secretary of some of L. Avetisyan’s sittings is not a ground for self-recusal provided for by law.” Ananyan thinks that Poghosyan manipulates his marital relationship with the secretary of the sittings.

Marina Poghosyan sates that judge Avetisyan had a preconceived attitude towards not only Hrant Ananyan, but also towards herself, as she had previously criticized the judge publicly by blaming him for carrying out an order and serving the authorities. Besides, “Veles” non-governmental organisation directed by Poghosyan had signed the common announcement about judge Avetisyan, which had the following content: “By his behaviour not appropriate to a judge and cynical, incorrect behaviour displayed during proceedings judge Levon Avetisyan once again destroys the reputation of the judicial system which is not inspiring confidence and the Republic of Armenia in general.”
“If I where a party to the proceedings, I would recuse myself before the judge just on that ground, as after all this he could have personal animus toward me, but they did their best to consider the appeal without me and to render an illegal decision,”: Poghosyan assures.

By the way, in January of this year Marina Poghosyan proved in the court that the criminal case instituted against her should not initially be considered in Arabkir Investigative Department and the further appeals of the decisions should not be carried out in the court of Arabkir. “Everything is clear to me. From the very beginning they illegally considered the case in Arabkir, as Hrant Ananyan had previously worked as an investigator in Arabkir, his wife was in the court of Arabkir, and this relations would help them to make all the case and decisions were rendered against me in Arabkir Investigative Department and in the court of Arabkir,”: declares Marina Poghosyan.

We would like to note, that while Poghosyan was trying to recover her right to appeal the decision rendered against her in the Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Administrative Districts, the criminal case instituted against her was being considered in the Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts. At the next court sitting Poghosyan’s advocate is going to file a motion, and the prosecutor is going to make an accusatory speech. Let us remind, that Marina Poghosyan may face 5-8 years of imprisonment, if she is found guilty in the accusation brought against her (Point 1 of Part 3 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia).

Advocate Hrant Ananyan and Judge Levon Avetisyan are in the photo.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2200523.html

The Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts interrogated the founder and president of the “Veles” human rights NGO, Marina Poghosyan, who presented to the court a number of new documents which have not been filed for the criminal case before. The information and documents presented by Poghosyan may be of crucial importance, and, as she stated, Arpi Meras, who  was acknowledged as the injured party, and a group of actors of Yerevan Drama Theater, presented false information to the preliminary investigation body and later also to the court.

First, one needs to understand how this criminal case was instituted. In July 2015, Yerevan Police Department was reported of the crime, signed in the name of a Canadian Armenian Arpi Meras, the owner of “Arpi Nursery School” in Toronto.

The report said that Marina Poghosyan had sold the real estate the de jure owner of which was Arpi Meras. Meras informed that she had never assigned Marina Poghosyan to sell it, instead she “had formulated some general powers of attorney” in her name. In other words, Meras blamed the human rights defender for a grave crime and demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice.

What was revealed during the preliminary investigation and the trial? At the first opportunity, Marina Poghosyan submitted three notarized letters of attorney to the investigative body, which were not of general nature, as Meras mentioned in her report, but they specifically related to the sale and the pledging of the apartment, as well as to performance of other transactions. The powers of attorney, respectively for 2008, 2010 and 2012, specifically stated that Meras authorized Marina Poghosyan “to dispose (use, sell, exchange, lease, pledge, give for gratuitous use) in her sole discretion” the apartment Meras owned, and to receive the sales sum as well. The power of attorney regarding the sale is distinguished by the fact that the authorized person, besides signing it, he/she also writes the word “Sell” with his/her own handwriting both in the power of attorney and the notary’s register. This is usually done so that the authorized person does not further declare that he/she has signed the document unconsciously.

After the submission of these documents, the investigative body did not quash the criminal case initiated against Marina Poghosyan. Instead, on the grounds of testimonies presented by some representatives of Yerevan Drama Theater and other witnesses, they tried to substantiate that Marina Poghosyan sold the apartment by abusing Arpi Meras’s trust.

By the way, the notary Marine Manukyan, who formulated the three letters of attorney, assured during her interview with the “Arajin lratvaka” (“The first news” channel) that she would read and explain the content of powers of attorney before signing them. Though Arpi Meras had written the word “Sell” by her hand it did not prevent her from announcing that she did not understand that she was going to authorize Marina Poghosyan to sell the apartment. It can be stated that she is making use of the fact of her being a diaspora Armenian, with this creating an impression that she does not understand anything from the documents, though she taught the Armenian language to Canadian Armenian children for many years.

As regards to the formulation of a “general letter of attorney”, Arpi Meras, while being questioned in court, stated that she had given it to Marina Poghosyan so that the latter could have her apartment repaired. Poghosyan, who appeared in the status of the defendant on this fact, presented documents, which substantiate that Meras could not have given a power of attorney for repair. First of all, there is no need for a power of attorney in case of repair of an apartment belonging to someone. Secondly, there is no word of “Repair” in any of the letters of attorney; and thirdly and most importantly, during the repair period of the apartment Arpi Meras was not the owner of it and she could not simply have given a letter of attorney.

Arpi Meras became a de jure owner of the disputed apartment only in May 2008 after she had arrived in Armenia from Canada. The documents submitted by Marina Poghosyan prove that the work of repair and refurnishing of the apartment was completed still in February 2008. By the way, Poghosyan had a power of attorney not for repair, but for the gasification, installation of a telephone line and signing of other contracts, but not from Arpi Meras, as the latter did not have any relation to the apartment in 2007 by any document. At that time Marina Poghosyan’s brother was the de jure owner of the apartment, who gave Poghosyan a letter of attorney of three months’ validity to authorize the latter to make the necessary deals on his behalf.

All the documents on repair and furnishing of the apartment submitted by the human rights defender (a contract with “ArmRosGazprom” CJSC, a receipt provided by the craftsman of the apartment repair, invoices for bathroom accessories, adhesives, paints and tiles) were given in 2007, with the exception of the gas boiler-related document, which was given in February 2008. “Everyone knows that a gas boiler is installed after the repair has been completed. This means that the repair of the apartment was completed in February 2008”, Marina Poghosyan mentioned.

By the way, Arpi Meras also admitted in her evidence given in court that when she arrived in Yerevan in 2008, and it was in May, the work of repair had already been completed. “She offered to do it (the repair), and I said “Very well”. When I arrived, I was very impressed and just delighted”, said Arpi Meras. It becomes clear from the documents and her testimonies that Arpi Meras could not have authorized Poghosyan to repair an apartment which was already fully repaired and furnished, and which the Canadian-Armenian lady was delighted with.

But this is not the only episode in which the testimonies given by Arpi Meras do not correspond to the reality. She stated that the disputed apartment was registered in her name when she signed a purchase and sale agreement with Marina Poghosyan’s father and brother. The notarized document, however, points to something else. The purchase and sale agreement was signed on May 16, 2008, when Marina Poghosyan’s father and brother were absent from the Republic of Armenia. Poghosyan had a letter of attorney provided by her brother and she herself sold the apartment to Arpi Meras. “This is a very important circumstance, as I myself sold formally the apartment to Arpi in the absence of my brother and father, as she bought it, but by documents it was registered in my brother’s name for five years. If I had wished to deceive Arpi, who had been my close friend for forty years, I would not have just sold her the apartment”, Marina Poghosyan says.

It is remarkable that the formal contract of sale of the apartment by which Meras became the owner and her first power of attorney was given to Marina Poghosyan on the same day with some minutes’ difference. “Both transactions were on the spot, registered under the successive numbers (1024 and 1025). This proves that just a few minutes after having become the owner of the apartment, Arpi Meras expressed a wish that I could fully dispose it”, Marina Poghosyan told to “Arajin lratvakan”.

According to Marina Poghosyan, she spent a sum equivalent to $ 40,000 US dollars to repair and furnish the apartment. Later, she gave Arpi Meras another 20 million Armenian drams so that to become the owner of the apartment, which, however, was not recorded by any documents.

“I did not take any receipt when I gave the 20 million drams to Arpi, first because we were like a family; my mother had died a long time before, still young, and Arpi was like a parent for me. When in 1993 Arpi paid $ 6500 USD and actually purchased the apartment, which was legally formulated in the name of my brother, did Arpi make any document or take any receipt that she had any connection to that particular apartment? She did not; it was done on the basis of mutual trust. Similarly, I did not formulate anything when I gave her that 20 million drams”, Poghosyan announced in court.

The human rights defender also responded to the question she was often posed. Why didn’t they conclude an apartment purchase and sale contract when Arpi Meras came to Armenia in 2010 so that the apartment would become de jure property of hers? “On April 21, 2010, a car accident was held in which the guilty party was disputable, and I filed a civil complaint to the court (ԵէԴ/0998/02/10), and the opposite party submitted a counterclaim, thus a property arrest warrant was decided for both of the parties, and in order to avoid any unnecessary arrest on this apartment only that a purchase and sale deal was not executed. As to the question why I did not formulate the apartment in the name of my son’s in 2010, I would say that my son was too young to own such a property and, secondly, he would go to the army in a month. By the way, that was the last time I had met Arpi in Armenia by the time of initiating this criminal case”, Poghosyan insisted.

Marina Poghosyan also touched upon the episode of the sale of the apartment. “I did not make any illegal bargains and, even if I would have wished, I could not do that as much as purchase and sale of real estate is done by further notary registration, actually, if I was not competent to dispose the property, no notary would ratify the transaction”.

The human rights defender proved with the documents presented to the court that she still intended to sell the apartment in 2013 and did it publicly and openly when posting announcements and photos of the apartment at the website of a real estate agency and other websites. “Is there any intelligent person who could post a statement on the Internet to make it known all over the world on the crime as if he/she was going to commit?”, Marina Poghosyan posed a rhetorical question, and then added that in the spring of 2014 she placed a poster in the balcony of the apartment overlooking the square. In order the court could understand the visibility of the balcony, which is even seen visible from Republic Square, Marina Poghosyan presented its photo.

Lastly, in May of 2014, a friend of Poghosyan’s childhood bought the apartment for 33 million drams. “Arpi was aware of the sale; I told her, though I did not have such a commitment as the apartment was mine, but exclusively from the human point of view, I told and informed her that the house was bought by a person, that should she come to Armenia, she could stay there, as that person, the buyer, would not live there or lease it”, Marina Poghosyan stated in her testimony.

Since the buyer sold the apartment afterwards, the preliminary investigation body concluded as if the purchase and sale contract signed in May, 2014, was false and that Poghosyan’s childhood friend assisted her to defalcate the property. “The preliminary investigation body ignored the fact that the buyer and I were childhood friends, and that if I had wished to formally sell the apartment to her, I would not have been posting sales announcements on purchase on the Internet and real estate agencies since 2013, and would not have stuck poster in the apartment’s balcony, to make all the world aware of that”, Poghosyan said.

Poghosyan also mentioned that when on July 29, 2015 she received a call from Yerevan Police Department and was verbally informed that she was suspected of committing some fraud, she did not believe it. “I immediately went to the Department where I was informed that as if Arpi had submitted an appeal against me; I did not believe it and could not believe as I had had a conversation with her just a few days before. I did not take it seriously and I thought it was a regular provocation by the police related to my professional activities”, Poghosyan informed in her testimony.

According to the human rights defender, she did not take seriously the initiated criminal case because that was not the first time that she had been subjected to fabricating a case against her. Let us remind that in 2014 another case was initiated against Marina Poghosyan, which, after eight months of investigation, was quashed by the preliminary investigation body and a conclusion was made that the person who had given false information about Poghosyan, the former RA Civil Aviation Chief Hovhannes Yeritsyan did not realize that he had given false testimonies against the human rights defender. “Perhaps they will come to the conclusion on this case, too, that Arpi Meras did not realize that she had given false information on me, especially that Meras, as Yeritsyan, is quite old – she is more than 80”, said the president of “Veles” NGO, Marina Poghosyan, in her interview to the “Arajin lratvakan”.

If the previous case did not reach the trial stage, this one has already been examined in court and reached the final stage. Marina Poghosyan is being accused of embezzling a particularly large amount of money (Article 179, part 1, point 1 of the RA Criminal Code) and is facing 5-8 years of imprisonment in case found guilty. The Canadian-Armenian Arpi Meras, the injured party, also has filed a civil suit against Poghosyan demanding from her 57.820.000 Armenian drams. We will reflect on Meras’s proprietary demand and the testimonies of her relations in our next publications.

Author: Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2198381.html

EKD/0002/11/17

Republic of Armenia

Criminal Court of Appeal

DECISION

20 July, 2017                                                                                                         c. Yerevan

The RA Criminal Court of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as Court of Appeal)

Chair judge                                                  M. Papoyan

Secretary of court sessions                      A. Julhakyan

Prosecutor                                                    N. Khachatryan

Investigator                                                 P. Aghababyan

Representatives of  D. Stepanyan          M. Poghosyan

                                                                     A. Sukiasyan

Representative of H. Yeritsyan                G. Margaryan,

soon after having examined in the open court session in the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the city of Yerevan (hereinafter referred to as Court of First Instance) against the appeal of March 14, 2017, the appeal by N. Khachatryan, the prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts:

FOUND OUT

The judicial prehistory of the case:

On May 6, 2016, by the decision of the investigator of the Central Division of Yerevan Office of the RA Police H. Nersisyan, initiation of the criminal case on the grounds of materials prepared based on the report by David Stepanyan,  was dismissed and no criminal prosecution was carried out against Hovhannes Yeritsyan, reasoning that there was not any corpus delicti in the latter’s actions.

On June 1, 2016, by the decision of prosecutor of the city of Yerevan A. Davtyan and by materials prepared based on the application of David Stepanyan,  the appeal by Marina Poghosyan, the representative of David Stepanyan, against the decision made by the investigator of the Central Division of Yerevan Office of the RA Police H. Nersisyan on declining the initiation of a criminal case of May 6, 2016, due to the absence of any corpus delicti in the actions of Hovhannes Yeritsyan, defined by article 213 of the RA Criminal Code, was dismissed for groundless reasons.

The decision of May 6, 2016, made by the investigator of the Central Division of Yerevan Office of the RA Police H. Nersisyan, on declining the initiation of the criminal case based on the fact that there was not any corpus delicti defined by article 137 of the RA Criminal Code in the actions of Hovhannes Yeritsyan, had been abolished and criminal case No 63203516 was initiated on the ground of article 137 of the RA Criminal Code.

On September 6, 2016, criminal case No 63203516 was confirmed for proceedings by the decision of P. Aghababyan, the senior investigator of the RA Investigation Committee Yerevan City Investigation Department of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts.

On November 10, 2016, by the decision of P. Aghababyan, the senior investigator of the RA Investigation Committee Yerevan City Investigation Department of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts, proceedings by criminal case No 63203516 was quashed and no prosecution defined by article 137, part 1, of the RA Criminal Code was held against Hovhannes Yeritsyan, based on article 35, part 1, point 2, of the RA Criminal Code on the grounds of the absence of any corpus delicti in the actions.

On December 1, 2016, by the decision of R. Aslanyan, the prosecutor of the city of Yerevan, the appeal by Marina Poghosyan, the representative of David Stepanyan, against the decision by P. Aghababyan, the senior investigator of the RA Investigation Committee Yerevan City Investigation Department of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts, was dismissed for groundless reasons.

On January 9, 2017, Marina Poghosyan, the representative of David Stepanyan, submitted an appeal to the Court of First Instance with the request of dismissing the decisions of November 10, 2016, made by P. Aghababyan, the senior investigator of the RA Investigation Committee Yerevan City Investigation Department of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts,  and of December 1, 2016, made by R. Aslanyan, the prosecutor of the city of Yerevan, and of deciding on dismissing / reconsidering the violation of David Stepanyan’s rights and freedoms.

On March 14, 2017, by the decision of the Court of First Instance, the appeal by Marina Poghosyan, the representative of David Stepanyan, was satisfied, binding the executing body of proceedings to abolish the violation of rights of David Stepanyan caused by the decision of November 10, 2016, on quashing the proceedings of the criminal case made by P. Aghababyan, the senior investigator of the RA Investigation Committee Yerevan City Investigation Department of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts, and the decision of December 1, 2016, on not executing prosecutions, made by R. Aslanyan, the prosecutor of the city of Yerevan.

The copy of the above-mentioned decision was received in the Prosecutor’s Office of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the city of Yerevan on March 22, 2017.

On March 31, 2017, the Court of Appeal received the appeal by the prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the city of Yerevan L. Khacahatryan,  against the decision of March 14, 2017, made by the Court of First Instance, and materials on the appeal were received on April 5, 2017.

The conclusions by the court on the trustworthiness of the proofs shall be grounded on factual data found in the case (…).

Thus, taking into consideration the above-presented, particularly that the body of holding the court case proceedings did not undertake all the measurements foreseen by the RA criminal Code for thorough, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the criminal case, in the condition of which the rights of David Stepanyan were  violated, as well as considering that the findings on the execution of investigative and judicial actions recorded in the decision by the Court of First Instance are of initial importance for the solution of this case, the Court of Appeal finds that the appeal by the prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the city of Yerevan L. Khacahatryan shall be dismissed, and the decision of March 14, 2017, made by the Court of First Instance shall be kept in legal force.

Based on the above-presented and led by articles 290, 387, 394 and 412 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal:

DECIDED

To dismiss the appeal by the prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the city of Yerevan L. Khacahatryan, and keep in legal force the decision of March 14, 2017, made by the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts of the city of Yerevan.

The decision can be appealed to the Court of Cassation within a 15-day period of time as soon as it has been received.

Judge    /signed and sealed/     M. Papoyan

America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact — the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality. Adlai Stevenson 

]

Today, at the club of ” Article 3 ”, Marina Poghosyan, the head of the ‘Veles’ human rights NGO, and Arthur Sukiasyan, an advocate, presented the research report of “Usury as Perverse Manifestation of Corruption”.

”Usury as Perverse Manifestation of Corruption” research report

Dear colleagues,

«Veles»  Human  Rights  NGO  is  pleased to invite you to the presentation and discussion of  «Usury as Perverse Manifestation of Corruption» research report that will take place at «Article 3» club on 28^th of June at 1 pm.  

 ( https://web.facebook.com/article3club/ )

With best regards

«Veles» Human Rights NGO

video by © HELSINKI ASSOCIATION

video by © HELSINKI ASSOCIATION

The United Nations General Assembly declared May 3 to be World Press Freedom Day or just World Press Day to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the press and remind governments of their duty to respect and uphold the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and marking the anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration, a statement of free press principles put together by African newspaper journalists in Windhoek in 1991.

UNESCO marks World Press Freedom Day by conferring the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize on a deserving individual, organisation or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and/or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. Created in 1997, the prize is awarded on the recommendation of an independent jury of 14 news professionals. Names are submitted by regional and international non-governmental organisations working for press freedom, and by UNESCO member states.

The Prize is named in honour of Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper, El Espectador, in Bogotá, on 17 December 1986. Cano’s writings had offended Colombia’s powerful drug barons.