Skip to main content

Disciplinary harassment is going on: this time by the Penitentiary Institution

The head of the Vanadzor Penitentiary Institution applied to the Chamber of Advocates to request about bringing to liability the advocate Arayik Papikyan for the fact that he had only demanded an immediate execution of the court decision.

On February 27, the Criminal Court of Appeal made a decision on the immediate release of his client. The advocate sent the decision of the court to the Vanadzor Penitentiary, which had not been executed for a few hours.

“I called on the Vanadzor Penitentiary to complain and request, even using some harsh expressions, that my client immediately be released as there was the decision of his immediate release from the court,” said Arayik Papikyan.

The head of the Vanadzor Penitentiary, Artak Hovhannisyan, in his motion filed in the Chamber of Advocates quoted from the telephone conversation he had had with Arayik Papikyan. He noted that all those who do not execute court decisions should be brought to liability. The defender brought the names of the Minister of Justice Artak Zeynalyan, the head of the penitentiary service and the head of the penitentiary institution.

“Actually, I did not behave myself in a correct way. Now I want to inform that I said all that even in a very soft manner. I reaffirm that all those who do not make any court decision shall be brought to liability,” says the advocate. He also adds: “If the head of the Vanadzor Penitentiary is not aware of Article 353 of the Criminal Code, it is high time to remind him that it is written in black and white that not executing intentionally a judicial act in which the term of execution is specified is a criminally punishable act.”

The head of the Vanadzor Penitentiary requested the Head of the Chamber of Advocates to accept the letter as a report and discuss the expediency of initiating disciplinary proceedings against Arayik Papikyan.

“If I, in his opinion, have violated any codes of conduct, then the issue of expediency cannot be discussed. This should not have been an issue of a discretionary domain. In other words, he even doubts whether Arayik Papikyan has violated anything or not,” says the advocate.

Arayik Papikyan suggests that the legal knowledge of the head of the Penitentiary Institution should have to be examined by the Minister of Justice Artak Zeynalyan. And if the telephone call was recorded about which Arayik Papikyan had not been informed, then the recorder Hayk Kachyan permitted a violation of the law.

The officer of the penitentiary should respond if the telephone call had been recorded or just a citation was brought from the conversation. Arayik Papikyan assures that his words are misrepresented.

“They noted that the advocate had urged the relatives of the detainee not to present a copy of the decision to the penitentiary. A person with a fantastic imaginary can allow himself to such an action.” According to the advocate, all these facts prove that officers of the penitentiary institutions continue those manners that were typical at the time of Serzh Sargsyan, and Robert Kocharyan, and no changes have been noticed yet.

More details can be found on the video.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *