The case over beaten to death boy must be revealed

On June 7 of 2011, the RA Court of Appeals declined Kotayk Region Prosecutor’s claim over Derenik Gasparyan’s case against the resolution made by the Kotayk Region Court of First Instance.

It should be noted that Derenik Gasparyan’s died on June 5, 2010 at School #5 in Charentsavan, Kotayk Region, as a result of a severe beating by his peers. A criminal case over the 10-year-old boy’s death was filed 46 days later. The case was initiated based on “severe physical injury that occurred prior to death” and not the fact of “death” itself in accordance with Article 118 of RA Criminal Procedure Code. 

The criminal case was filed based on conclusion of conducted forensic medical examination but the preliminary investigation body neither revealed the case-related circumstances nor brought up an accusation.

Artur Sakunts, head of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor was of the opinion that by initiating the case pursuant to Article 118, the law-enforcers attempt to divert the course of the case and, people that should incur punishment, evade liability. It means that, by accepting the fact of physical damage, the investigation body did not consider it as a subject for investigation as well as turned a blind eye to the fact that the teacher of Mathematics (the school principal’s wife) was not in the court room, though during the time spent at school, the school staff, headed by the principal and teaches, are held responsible for the schoolchildren and their safety. In this particular case, they should have been on site and averted the fight, so that it should not have caused the death of the boy.

Although according to the forensic medical examination, Derenik had an acute cardiovascular insufficiency; his parents highly doubt the validity of this fact. In spite of existing doubts, the preliminary investigation body made a decision to close the case trial. Arayik Zalyan, advocate of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor litigated the latter’s resolution at the Kotayk Region Court of First Instance and claimed to abrogate the interrogator’s resolution over closing the criminal case and to oblige Kotayk Region Prosecutor’s office to reach a relevant resolution regarding the appeal. 

On March 18, the Kotayk Region Court of First Instance satisfied the advocate’s claim. 
The Prosecutor’s office, of course, did not approved of it and filed an appeal to litigate the resolution made by the Kotayk Region Court of First Instance. However, pursuant to the 1-month period mistakenly stated in the judicial act, it automatically filed the appeal later than the 10-day period. The court returned the appeal and after reinstating the omitted deadline by Court’s decision, the Prosecutor’s office resubmitted its appeal. Consequently, the responding party received the court session notification only on May 24, two month after the due date, and could not respond to the claim. 

To verify the validity of the claim deadline, A. Zalyan submitted a solicitation to the presiding Judge with a claim to receive the appeal and try it. During the court trial it turned out that the deadline of the appeal was valid, simply the aggrieved party was not informed regarding the aforementioned circumstances until the first court session over the case was heard.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals declined the Prosecutor’s claim by leaving the resolution of the Court of First Instance in force. In other words, it reached a resolution that a proper investigation of the case be carried out by the preliminary investigation body.

www.1in.am