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