On 7 July 2012, the Police posted a statement entitled Necessary Clarification on their official website (www.police.am). Having no intention to enter into a debate, still, realizing the importance of the universal principles of law recognized by civilized nations and enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, and taking account of the imperative of the prevailing public interest, we feel obliged to describe the true picture and the chronology of the developments of the recent events to give the appropriate justifications and, more importantly, to prevent any possible future distortions of facts and legal provisions.   

Thus, on 10 July 2012, we (Lousineh Hakobyan and Tigran Yegoryan), practicing lawyers, having received a power of attorney from Vahe Avetyan’s father Garnik Avetyan, and acting in accordance with Article 80 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, submitted on the following day, 11 July 2012 a written request to the Office of the Department of Investigation of Especially Important Cases of the RA Police General Investigation Department (GID SIC) to recognize Garnik Avetyan as Vahe Avetyan’s legal successor. 

We submitted the relevant request along with the POAs certifying that we were authorized to act on behalf of Garnik Avetyan signed by the latter. Therefore, from that very moment it was evident that one of the victim’s close relatives had a desire to be recognized as his legal successor, and nothing could hinder the body in charge of the criminal proceedings from taking the relevant decision as soon as possible. However, the latter preferred a different working style.   

On 18 July 2012, not having received any feedback, we contacted Rouben Mkrcthyan, the chief of the investigative group by phone. He told us that a written request from Garnik Avetyan was required to have us recognized as the representatives of the victim’s legal successor. We informed him that the document submitted was, in fact, the request mentioned and that another request to involve us in the process of investigation would be submitted as soon as Garnik Avetyan was recognized as the victim’s legal successor. Investigator R. Mkrtchyan replied that he admitted my (Tigran Yegoryan’s) opinion but they did not work like that and required that Garnik Avetyan himself submitted the request. To this, we responded that the request in question had been submitted in line with the assignment given by Garnik Avetyan to us and that it should be considered as a request submitted by Garnik Avetyan. After quite a lengthy argument, we requested that they replied to our request in writing. Having not received any reply, on 19 July 2012 we submitted a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office requesting to establish supervision over the body in charge of the criminal proceedings to ensure legality and to exclude any arbitrary action on his part.  

On 20 July 2012, R. Mkrtchyan called us and inquired whether we were going to bring the request written by G. Avetyan himself on recognizing him as the victim’s legal successor. To this, we responded that we were still waiting for the response to the request we had submitted on 11 July.  

About 5 minutes later, we received a call from A. Ayvazyan, head of the division and R. Mkrchyan’s superior, who blamed us for delaying the process. In response to this, we inquired what hindered them from recognizing Garnik Avetisyan as the victim’s legal successor on the basis of the request submitted by his authorized representatives. A. Ayvazyan replied that in that case they knew what to reply and to whom.

On 23 July 2012, investigator R. Mkrtchyan called Garnik Avetyan and informed him that they were going to recognize him as the victim’s legal successor on 24 July. However, this did not happen. 

On 25 July 2012 R. Mkrtchyan called Garnik Avetyan and asked him to go to the General Investigative Department at 17:45 o’clock. At 18:00, Garnik Avetyan, together with us, entered the Department and tried to reach R. Mkrtchyan. However, for quite a long time the latter did not respond to either Garnik Avetyan’s or to our phone calls. At the duty station, a police officer called someone and informed us that investigator R. Mkrtchyan was not in his office. Thereafter, I, Lousineh Hakobyan called Investigator R. Mkrtchyan and finally managed to reach him. I, Lousineh Hakobyan, told him that we were waiting at the entrance. Investigator R. Mkrtchyan said that he would order a pass for Garnik Avetyan while we were told to wait outside. We informed investigator R. Mkrtchyan that our client wanted to enter the building together with us. However, Mkrtchyan’s reply was ‘let Avetyan come up, and we’ll discuss.’ Determined not lose time, we to lose, we explained to Garnik Avetyan that he could go up and demand the presence of his lawyers. Only 2 hours after Garnik Avetyan entered the building, we were invited to the investigator’s office where we were present at Garnik Avetisyan’s interrogation.

It is also worth mentioning that on the same day, 25 July 2012, we received a written response to our request dated 11 July 2012, which simply repeated the same reasoning the investigator had adduced earlier, but this time in a written form.  One cannot understand whether there was any need to prepare and send that response at all given that the deadlines to respond to the request had long been missed. Moreover, on 23 July, when the response of the investigator was sent, Garnik Avetyan had already been invited to the General Investigation Department in relation to the issue of recognizing him as the victim’s legal successor.  

Besides, on 25 July 2012 we submitted a motion to allow us to get access to the materials of the case and receive copies of the relevant documents.

After getting acquainted with the motion, investigator Mkrtchyan responded that the requested copies would be provided at 14:00 on the next day. However, on that date, 26 July, investigator Mkrtchyan was not responding either to our calls or messages. On 27 July, in response to our persistent attempts to reach him, he informed that he was going to respond to our motion in writing and demanded that we communicated with him only via written correspondence. And despite the statutory requirements, to this date we have not been provided with the requested documents.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, a reasoned decision is taken only in case of full or partial waiver of the motion, while in case a motion is granted, the investigating authority provides the copies of the requested materials or an opportunity for familiarization with the documents and enters this information into the protocol.

It is unclear what made investigator Mkrtchyan to withdraw from implementing the motion he had already granted verbally, respond in a written form and prolong the process for several more days before we could finally get acquainted with the documents?

As regards the assertion that the lawyers are not allowed to submit any motions before their procedural status has been granted, it also gives rise to the confusion because we did not submit any motion.

Determined not to give in to the temptation of adopting a style of making long references to relevant and non-relevant articles of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, we prefer to give a description of the the following simple facts: 

The right to life is a right guaranteed under the RA Constitution and international law, and the State, in this case, represented by the investigative body, has an obligation to ensure effective investigation of all cases of violation of the right to life, and, in particular, a murder case. As provided by the same legal documents, as well as the case law of international judicial bodies, an essential element of effective investigation in a case of violation of the right to life is involving the victim in the proceedings.

Hence, the autority investigating the case has a direct obligation to invlove the immediate successor of the victim from the very moment of instituting a criminal case. Not only was the Police trying consistently to evade this imperartive, but also even after having received the request we sent and in order to justify its style of work, it was citing numerous articles to prove that it did not receive any request signed by Garnik Avetyan.     

Thus, it turns out that the Police were not aware that the close relative of the deceased officer expressed a wish to be involved in the proceedings. Then, what is the reason why it did not immediately react to our request? If it was submitted by persons not having any procedural right to act on behalf of Garnik Avetyan, as the investigator wrongfully asserted, then, at least, it explicitely expressed the will of the deseased officer’s father to participate in the judicial proceedings expressed in the form of a power of attorney. 

Any authority with a strong commitment to investigate the case of violation of the right to life of the murdered officer should have immediately reacted to such an expression of will and would have granted a procedural status to Garnik Avetyan at the shortest possible timeframe, also with a view to raising the effectiveness of the investigation and increasing the public confidence in the process. 

Meanwhile, one may not perceive the behaviour of this very important public body otherwise than ‘You-should-not-say-what-we-should-do’. In response to many procedural articles cited by the Police, one should notice, that the Police did not perceive that the only purpose of all those articles is to ensure that very imperative of the law, and not to justify someone, who like a schoolboy, has not done his homework. What are the Police in fact trying to conceal?

• That the the serious injuries incompatible with a person's life had been inflicted on Vahe Avetyan on 17 June 2012, whereas his father was recognised as the victim’s legal successor only on 25 July 2012;

• That during this whole period, the investigative body, having bounced the case here and there like a ping-pong ball (at first, it was in the Investigation Department of the Defense Ministry, then it was sent from there to the General Investigative Department) and being extremely busy, could not find a few minutes to recognize Garnik Avetyan as the victim’s legal successor;

• That instead of spending their efforts and resources on the investigation of the case, they make lengthy statements full of stylistic phrases exressing irony and contempt;

• For several days, instead of granting our request and providing the requested copies of the documents, the Police were merely holding PR shows demonstrating their knowledge of the Criminal Procedure Code with a stance unbecoming to the Police, also not forgetting to respond to the media outlet having a critical attitude towards their workstyle.

After all, this kind of responses do not make clear what the RA Police have to do with the System of Investigation if that function is independent from police functions.

Judging from the responses and statements of the preliminary investigation body, it is clear that their attempts to refer to numerous articles of the Criminal Procedure Code were only intended to cover up their continuous infringements of the rights of the victim’s legal successor.  Ignoring in this manner our demand to ensure effective investigation of a case of such a great public concern is incompatible with the pledges expressed at the highest level of Police to ensure an open and public investigation of the case. We declare that in no circumstances will we renounce our intention to act in an open and public manner in this case. We also recommend this workstyle to the Police. As a first step, we demand that the Police provide us, without any delay, all the documents and information related to this case, the right of access to which is guaranteed to us by the Criminal Procedure Code.    

Lawyers

Tigran Yegoryan

Lousineh Hakobyan

31 July 2012