Դատավորի անձեռնմխելիության սկզբունքի էությունը

Posted on by
Reply

դատարանՀՀ դատական օրենսգրքի 2-րդ գլուխը նվիրված է դատական իշխանության սկզբունքներին, որոնցից մեկն էլ դատավորի անձեռնմխելիությունն է: Համաձայն նույն օրենսգրքի 13 հոդվածի` դատավորն անձեռնմխելի է: Դատավորը չի կարող ձերբակալվել, բացառությամբ այն դեպքերի, երբ ձերբակալումն իրականացվում է հանցագործության կատարման պահին կամ անմիջապես դրանից հետո: Դատավորի ձերբակալման մասին անմիջապես տեղեկացվում են Հանրապետության Նախագահը և վճռաբեկ դատարանի նախագահը: Ձերբակալման մասին որոշումը ոչ ուշ, քան ձերբակալման պահից 24 ժամ հետո ուղարկվում է Հանրապետության Նախագահին և վճռաբեկ դատարանի նախագահին: Ձերբակալումը կատարած մարմինները և պաշտոնատար անձինք պարտավոր են ապահովել վճռաբեկ դատարանի նախագահի անարգել մուտքը այն վայր, որտեղ պահվում է ձերբակալված դատավորը, և ապահովել նրա տեսակցությունը դատավորի հետ:

Դատավորին չի կարելի կալանավորել, նրան որպես մեղադրյալ ներգրավել, դատական կարգով վարչական պատասխանատվության ենթարկել՝ առանց Հայաստանի Հանրապետության արդարադատության խորհրդի առաջարկի հիման վրա Հանրապետության Նախագահի տված համաձայնության:

Դատավորի նկատմամբ քրեական հետապնդում հարուցելու պահից տվյալ գործով մինչդատական վարույթի նկատմամբ դատախազական հսկողությունն իրականացնում է Հայաստանի Հանրապետության գլխավոր դատախազը:

Դատավորին չի կարելի բերման ենթարկել: Առանց փաստաթղթերի բերման ենթարկված դատավորի ինքնությունը պարզելուց հետո իրավասու պետական մարմինը պետք է անմիջապես ազատ արձակի նրան:

Դատավորի կողմից շահադիտական կամ անձնական այլ դրդումներով ակնհայտ անարդար դատավճիռ, վճիռ կամ դատական այլ ակտ կայացնելու փաստի առթիվ քրեական հետապնդում չի կարող հարուցվել, եթե այդ ակտը վերադաս դատարանի կողմից բեկանված չէ:

Խուզարկություն, զննում, փաստաթղթերի կամ իրերի առգրավում կատարելու համար դատարանի շենք մուտք գործելն իրականացվում է դատարանի նախագահի իրազեկմամբ:

Դատավորը չի կարող ենթարկվել քաղաքացիաիրավական պատասխանատվության իր ծառայողական պարտականությունները ոչ պատշաճ կատարելու հետևանքով պատճառված վնասի համար, բացառությամբ, երբ վնասը պատճառվել է դիտավորությամբ կատարված գործողության հետևանքով:

Ռազմական կամ արտակարգ դրության հայտարարումը չի վերացնում դատավորի անձեռնմխելիության երաշխիքները:

 

Պատրաստեց   Ավետիք ՀԱՐՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՅԱՆԸ

RA Prosecutor General G. Kostanyan received EC Commissioner for Human Rights N. Muiznieks

Posted on by
Reply

G. Kostanyan , EC Commissioner for Human Rights N. MuizniekOn 21 October, 2013 RA Prosecutor General G. Kostanyan received the delegation headed by EC Commissioner for Human Rights N. Muiznieks. The head of EC Office of Commissioner for Human Rights I. Gashe, the deputy head B. Urumova, the representative of EC Secretary General to Armenia O. Pavlyuk were involved in the delegation.

RA Deputies Prosecutor General A. Tamazyan, H. Badalyan, E. Babayan also took part in the meeting.

Greeting the guests Mr. Kostanyan mentioned that he highlighted the cooperation with EC Commissioner for Human Rights both as RA Prosecutor General and as Armenian Representative to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Prosecutor General expressed readiness to continue the cooperation with the Commissioner for Human Rights on stable and comprehensive bases. Mr. G. Kostanyan briefly represented the steps implemented in the process of providing guarantee for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Prosecutor General highly evaluated the cooperation with the ex-Commissioner for Human Rights T. Hammerberg.

Congratulating Mr. Kostanyan on appointment as RA Prosecutor General Mr. N. Muiznieks emphasized that he was well-aware of Mr. Kostanyan’s activity and said he was sure they would have an efficient cooperation with RA Prosecution Office. EC Commissioner mentioned that his visit had a cognitive aim.

The members of EC delegation were interested in a number of issues regarding the soldiers’ rights in armed forces, issues on alternative service, the functions and authorities of prosecution office in the stage of judicial reforms.

RA Prosecutor General G. Kostanyan gave detailed answers to the questions the guests were interested in. He also offered to establish direct relations between the Office of Commissioner for Human Rights and RA Prosecutor General’s Office to have a quick exchange of information.

Information on defendants on criminal case initiated against judicial bailiffs for abuse

Posted on by
Reply

դատախազությունThe preliminary investigation on the criminal case initiated against a number of employees of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department pursuant to the Articles 178, 308 and 314 of RA Criminal Code for abuse of official authority, swindling money in particularly large amount by official forgery and cheating in Yerevan city investigation department of General Investigation Department of RA Police is in process. Until 25 September 19 persons were involved as defendants, 2 persons are as suspects.

Taking the public interest into consideration the data and charges of the involved persons are presented below:

1. The deputy head of RA Judicial Department, the head of Service of Judicial Bailiffs Armen Movsisyan was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measures.

2. The head of subdivision of Judicial Bailiffs of Central Body of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Armen Avagyan was charged pursuant to the Article 314, the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measures.

3. The head of Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Ajapnyak and Davitashen administrative districts of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Armen Mirzoyan was accused according to the Article 314 and the Part 1 of the Article 308 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measure which was replaced by bail.

4. The head of subdivision of Judicial Bailiffs of the staff of the Court of First Instance of Avan and Nor Norq administrative districts of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Bagrat Arikyants was accused pursuant to the Article 314 and the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measures.

5. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Arabkir and Qanaqer-Zeytun administrative districts of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Samvel Aleqsanyan was charged according to the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

6. The storekeeper of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Yura Mushkidyanov was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measures.

7. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Court of Criminal Appeals Arman Palikyan was charged pursuant to the Part 1 of the Article 308 and the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

8. The deputy head of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Gagik Khachatryan was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measure which was replaced by personal guarantee.

9. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Civil Court of Appeals of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Arman Malkhasyan was charged according to the Part 1 of the Article 308 and the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

10. The head of division of staff management in the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Narek Gasparyan was charged pursuant to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 and the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Imprisonment was used as pretrial measures.

11. The head of Finance Division of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department, chief accountant Satenik Hovhannisyan was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

12. The head of Supervision Division of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Yeghiazar Sargsyan was accused pursuant to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

13. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Arararat and Vayots Dzor regions of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department, then from November, 2012 the head of the subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Administrative Court Eduard Hovhannisyan was accused according to the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

14. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Arararat and Vayots Dzor regions of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Armen Petrosyan was charged according to the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

15. The ex-head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Kotayq region of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Mher Gevorgyan was accused pursuant to the Part 1 of the Article 308 and the Article 314. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

16. The ex-head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Kotayq region of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Hayk Margaryan was accused according to the Part 1 of the Article 308 and the Article 314. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

17. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Shirak region of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Artak Gevorgyan was charged according to the Part 1 of the Article 308 and the Article 314. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

18. The head of subdivision of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of the Court of First Instance of Kotayq region of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs of RA Judicial Department Norayr Melqonyan was charged pursuant to the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code. Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures.

19. On 15.08.2013 a decision was made on involving the deputy head of the Service of Judicial Bailiffs Gegham Grigoryan as a defendant pursuant to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 178 of RA Criminal Code. Search was declared to find out his location. Imprisonment was chosen as pretrial measures.

Signature for not leaving was used as pretrial measures against the suspects Artyom Mamyan and Meruzhan Kyureghyan.

Case of 4 employees of Gyumri territorial subdivision of SSSS sent to court

Posted on by
Reply

7846_bIn the framework of the criminal case initiated on the abuses recorded during the process of fixing and paying pensions the preliminary investigation on the part of the abuses found in Gyumri territorial subdivision was completed. The prosecutor implementing prosecutorial supervision confirmed the bill of indictment, at the same time he submitted a petition to the court on restoring the damage inflicted to the state.

According to the factual data obtained during the pre-trial proceeding 5 persons were involved as a defendant for squandering a particularly large amount of pension money, funeral benefits and heritable money from 2008 to 2010.

Thus,
According to the materials of criminal case the head of Gyumri territorial subdivision of Social Security State Service of RA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs Eduard Varzhapetyan reaching a prior agreement on squandering a particularly large amount of money with the operator of the same subdivision Artur Abrahamyan, from 2007 to 2009 from pension depository had separated the data of pensioners who had not received pension for a long time and in the name of those pensioners had prepared false applications on restarting the detained payment of pension.

E. Varzhapetyan had given the mentioned documents to A. Abrahamyan who had involved the separated data in appropriate payment lists, had confirmed the payment fact with false signatures, received the pension money and passing the received money to E. Varzhapetyan had swindled a particularly large amount of money drawn out in the name of 9 pensioners, as well as had committed official forgery.

According to the materials of criminal case, later, A. Abrahamyan by E. Varzhapetyan’s instruction had removed the data of swindled money from pension depository. According to the agreement E. Varzhapetyan had given A. Abrahamyan 10 percent of the received money.

According to the preliminary investigation data, the responsible person for heritage payment subdivision R. Mnatsakanyan, out of personal interests, abusing official authorities, from 2008 to 2010 being aware of the fact that the inspector-payers of the same subdivision Kima Piloyan and Anya Khachatryan had made groundless payment of pension money in the name of pensioners to the operator Artur Abrahamyan,as well as being aware of swindling a particularly large amount of money by the group of the mentioned people, had not prevented the groundless drawing out and swindling of state budget resources.

On the contrary, he had received and confirmed the reports on paying pension money, funeral benefits and heritable money from his actual wife Kima Piloyan and Anya Khachatryan, had submitted reports on them to payment service, had signed acts of accounts. So, Kima Piloyan, Anya Khachatryan and Artur Abrahamyan had an opportunity to swindle a significant amount of pension money by a group inflicting the state a damage of particularly large amount.

On the base of the obtained evidence E. Varzhapetyan was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 179 and the Article 314 of RA Criminal Code,

Artur Abrahamyan was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 179, the Article 38-314 and the Part 1 of the Article 325 of RA Criminal Code,

Kima Piloyan was accused according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 179 and the Part 1 of the Article 325 of RA Criminal Code,

Ruben Mnatsakanyan was accused according to the Part 2 of the Article 308 of RA Criminal Code.

Anya Khachatryan was involved as a defendant according to the Point 1 of the Part 3 of the Article 179 and the Part 1 of the Article 325. The part on her was separated as a separate proceeding and taking into consideration that it is not known where she is, was detained. Measures are taken to find Anya Khachatryan.

Totally, the damage inflicted to the state was estimated 91.560.299 AMD 3.000.000 AMD of which E. Varzhapetyan restored during the preliminary investigation. The Department of State Interest Protection of RA Prosecutor General’s Office submitted a petition to the court to confiscate the rest of the money – 88.560.299 AMD from the mentioned 4 defendants.

We remind that in May, 2011 a criminal case was initiated on the abuses recorded in the process of fixing and paying pensions in the Department of State Interest Protection of RA Prosecutor General’s Office. The implementation of the preliminary investigation of it was tasked to the Investigation Department of Especially Important Cases of General Investigation Department of RA Police adjunct to government.

Messi to hit the big screen after American company buy rights to portray ‘Rocky-style’ biography about Barcelona superstar

Posted on by
Reply

Real Betis' defender Javier Chica (L) viLionel Messi’s life story is set to hit cinemas in time for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

Epic Pictures Group says it is financing and developing a Rocky-style film after buying the rights to dramatise a biography about the Barcelona superstar.

The Beverly Hills-based company says the biopic will chart Messi’s rise from a modest background in Argentina and how he ‘overcame his physical shortcomings to become one of the greatest players of all time.’

Co-founder Shaked Berenson hopes ‘audiences will be uplifted by this incredible tale of fighting for your dreams.’

 

The preliminary investigation of the case on assassination attempt against P. Hayrikyan completed

Posted on by
Reply

դատախազություն The preliminary investigation of the criminal case initiated on the attempt of assassination against the former candidate for RA President, the leader of the party NSDU P. Hayrikyan in order to terminate his political activity was completed in the Investigation Department of RA National Security Service adjunct to government. The prosecutor who supervised the criminal case confirmed the bill of indictment.

According to the factual data obtained during the pre-trial proceeding V. Sedrakyan registered as a candidate for RA President in the elections on February 18, 2013 at the beginning of January, 2013 had ordered S. Harutyunyan and Kh. Pogosyan to murder the leader of the party NSDU, another candidate for RA President P. Hayrikyan in order to terminate his political activity.

In order to get a weapon, V. Sedrakyan had given money to S. Harutyunyan and Kh. Pogosyan which they had shared between themselves. They had used the ”Nagan” type drum gun of 7,62 mm obtained and kept illegally by Kh. Pogosyan in order to commit the crime.

According to the plan Kh. Pogosyan was to commit the assassination and S. Harutyunyan was to wait for him in the car.

On January 31, 2013 at about 23:20 at the entrance of P. Hayrikyan’s house Kh. Pogosyan had shot at P. Hayrikyan’s chest twice and escaped failing to complete the crime.

On the base of the obtained evidence V. Sedrakyan was accused according to the Article 38-34-305 of RA Criminal Code (to organize the attempt of assassination of a state, political or public figure), Kh. Pogosyan was accused pursuant to the Article 34-305 of RA Criminal Code (attempt of assassination of a state, political or public figure) and the Part 1 of the Article 235 of RA Criminal Code (illegal procurement, keeping and carrying of weapons) and S. Harutyunyan was accused according to the Article 34-305 of RA Criminal Code (attempt of assassination of a state, political or public figure).

The criminal case with the bill of indictment was sent to the Court of First Instance of Kentron and Norq-Marash administrative districts of Yerevan.

The identity of the person who had appropriated the personal pages of users of social website discovered

Posted on by
Reply

դատախազություն In the framework of the criminal case initiated on illegal appropriation of computer data, the person who had illegally appropriated 2 users’ personal pages of the website “odnoklassniki.ru” and changed their names was discovered.

By the preliminary investigation of the criminal case initiated on February 18, 2013 in General Investigation  Department off RA Police adjunct to government it was found out that on February 22, 2013 the user of the personal page “Nar”, while communicating online with H. Nersisyan in the website “odnoklassniki.ru”, had told her that he would break her personal page if the latter refused to accept his friend request.

Later, H. Nersisyan not being able to enter her personal page had noticed that the name of the page was changed.

Besides, it was also found out that in the same period the unknown person had illegally appropriated the personal page of H. Nersisyan’s boyfriend S. Hambardzumyan in the website “odnoklassniki.ru’’.

In the result of the measures taken to discover the crime it was found out that the mentioned personal pages in the website “odnoklassniki.ru” were appropriated by N. Grigoryan who had used the computer of his friend G. Hakobyan.

During the preliminary investigation N. Grigoryan confessed what he had committed.

The preliminary investigation initiated on the case according to the Part 1 of the Article 254 of RA Criminal Code is in process.

Additional information about the results will be provided.

 

A criminal case initiated for the attempt of lecherous acts and dissemination of pornographic materials

Posted on by
Reply

դատախազությունIn the Department for Cases Investigated by National Security Bodies and Cybercrimes of RA Prosecutor General’s Office a criminal case was initiated for the attempt of lecherous acts to the minor and presenting children’s pornography through computer network.

On the base of the written report of the lawyer by the materials prepared in the General Department of Struggle against Organized Crimes of RA Police adjunct to government it was found out that during April, 2013 an unknown person, with the purpose of having sexual relations with boys aged 12-14, in the social website ”odnoklassniki.ru” had got acquainted with the minor Karen (the name is changed) born in 2004 and through network had discussed possible sexual relations, their ways and sexual organs with the latter.

Besides, through the same website the same person had shown children’s pornographic videos to Karen not knowing that instead of him he was communicating through network with the latter’s father.

By the prepared materials a criminal case was initiated on April 18 according to the Part 1 of the Article 34-142 and the Part 2 of the Article 263 of RA Criminal Code. The preliminary investigation of the criminal case was tasked to the Department of Investigation of Especially Important Cases of General Investigation Department of RA Police adjunct to government.

In the result of the program of complex activities and operative measures developed and implemented by the appropriate subdivisions of the police, as well as the employees of the appropriate department of the prosecution office supervising the criminal case, the identity of the person who had committed the above-mentioned activities was found out. He is a citizen of Yerevan Miqayel A. By the examination of the computer confiscated during the search of the latter’s flat a number of videos of children’s pornography were discovered.

On April 19 Miqayel A. was arrested.