Human Rights Activists against the Prosecutor’s Office

Based on a claim initiated by the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor, the Lori Region Prosecutor’s Office has reached a resolution to withdraw the filingof a criminal case against the organization.

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor presented a claim to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office with regard to interrogator Vahe Dolmazyan’s exceeding his authorizations, which was subsequently referred to the Lori region Prosecutor’s Office.

However, they didn’t make a resolution but instead replied to the organization with a written letter.  “The writtenletter has no legal power and is not subject to an appeal”, explains HCA Vanadzor lawyer Arayik Zalyan.The RA Court of Appeal didn’t change the resolution of Lori Region Court of First Instance. It should be noted that the Lori Region Court of First Instance, presided by Judge Volodia Ghukasyan, satisfied the claim of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor againstthe inactivity of the Lori Region Prosecutor’s Office.

The latter had reached a resolution to initiate and withdrew filing a criminal case as defined by law and presented copies to the human rights protective organization. “The Prosecutor’s officereached a resolution to reject filing a criminal case by explaining  that the facts on illegal search presented by the organization hadn’t been justified”, explains the HCA-Vanadzor advocate. The organization has appealed the resolution to the RA Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepyan, who has also turned it down. “Currently, we have applied to Lori Region Court of First Instance with a claim to revoke the decision”, notes advocate Zalyan. 

In August of 2009,Vanadzor citizen Shushanik Sargsyan, had appealed to the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor to protect her violated rights. Shushanik stated that interrogator V. Dolmazyan and 3 police officials from the Lori Region Investigation Divisionof the RA Police InvestigationDepartmenthad conducted an illegal search in her apartment. The Preliminary Investigation bodyconducted a searchboth in the apartment it had the warrant for and one that they didn’t”, states the advocate. He found out on site that besides the apartment he had a warrant for, the citizen owned and resides inanother flatand consequently an illegal search was conducted there”. 
   
Source www.aravot.am