Tuesday, October 22 2019 15:33

ArmInfo. The Armenian Ombudsman Arman Tatoyan demanded clarification from the Special Investigation Service (SIS) in connection with the arrest of the former deputy head of the National Assembly Apparatus Arsen Babayan. It became known the  day before that the former deputy head of the RA National Assembly  was detained for official forgery with a group of officials in the  process of resigning of the powers of the former chairman of the  Constitutional Court Gagik Harutyunyan.

In a statement circulated on October 22, the chief human rights  activist stated that the Special Investigation Service detained Arsen  Babayan on suspicion of committing a crime under subsection 1 of  Article 314 of the RA Criminal Code, which is punishable by a fine of  two to five times the minimum wage, or by deprivation of liberty for  a period not exceeding four years with the deprivation of the right  to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a  period not exceeding three years. The statement of the human rights  activist also notes that paragraph 1 of paragraph 5 of Article 2 of  the Amnesty Law of 2018 reads "Refuse to initiate criminal  proceedings, terminate criminal proceedings, as well as terminate  criminal prosecution or not prosecute cases of crimes committed  before October 21, 2018 years inclusive (with the exception of cases  directly leading to the death of a person for which there is an  objection to the successor of the victim), in which persons can be  accused or charged with committing crimes, crimes for which a  punishment of imprisonment of no more than four years is prescribed".

<Paragraph 17 of Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  considers as criminal prosecution all procedural actions that are  carried out by the criminal prosecution authorities, and in the cases  provided for by this Code, the victim with the aim of identifying the  person who committed an act unauthorized by the Criminal Code, guilty  of the latter in committing a crime, as well as ensuring the  application of other measures of punishment and coercion against such  a person.

The human rights defender takes into account the regulation of part 6  of article 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that, on the basis of  the adoption of the amnesty law, termination of proceedings and  termination of criminal prosecution is not allowed if the defendant  objects to this. The defender also takes into account the fact that  according to part 12 of article 4 of the amnesty law, in the presence  of a judicial act that has entered into legal force, the consent of  the convicted person to the application of amnesty is not required.

That is, the quoted legislative provisions suggest that even if a  person objects to the application of the amnesty law against him,  then even if convicted, he can in no case be sentenced to  imprisonment.  The aforementioned also means that in all cases the  exclusion of the prospect of conviction of a person in the form of  imprisonment can make procedural actions interfering with his right  to personal freedom in a criminal case an end in itself and,  therefore, unlawful.  The described further increases the procedural  burden of the body conducting the production in each similar case to  ensure the uniformity of its actions in terms of the legitimate aim  pursued and the proportionate means of achieving it. It also means  that the body conducting the production is obliged to show that the  restriction of a person's right to personal freedom does not aim to  punish him or to deprive him of deprivation.  Considering the above,  the decision of the Ombudsman has already initiated a discussion  procedure in connection with the rights of Arsen Babayan on his own  initiative.  On behalf of the Ombudsman, his office staff paid a  visit to the place of detention of the detainee in the police  department to meet with Arsen Babayan.  The human rights defender  demanded clarification from the Special Investigation Service and,  given that it is a question of detention, a one-day deadline has been  set for the submission of clarifications>, the document says.