On June 1st the latter applied to the Prosecutor of Shengavit administrative district with a request to eliminate Kamo Sharoyan’s decision about the mediation rejection and to supplement the accusation brought against Tigran Manukyan with the Article 149 of RA Cr. Code.
“On the same day the deputy of the Prosecutor of Shengavit administrative district, first category counselor of justice A. Arakelyan introduced a reply on my complaint with a working style typical to Prosecutor’s Office and naturally rejected the complaint. It’s interesting that I made the complaint on June 1st and actually the reply was ready on the same day, hours later; in fact, the belief that the received complaints were not even discussed and were rejected just on the spot was approved once again. Also interesting is the fact that the response of the complaint, for some reason, was given to us personally by Investigator Sharoyan on June 19th”.
Approximately 1 month after the case initiation, on June 12th an accusation was brought against Arman Veziryan in the frameworks of the same criminal case on the basis of Article 118 of RA Cr. Code, who had previously applied to police with a complaint on the same incident. I have introduced a complaint on this decision as well to the Prosecutor of Shengavit administrative district with a request to eliminate the decision on Arman Veziryan’s involvement in the case as an accused. As basis for the complaint particularly the following arguments have been introduced – the accusation was brought against Arman Veziryan on the basis of the testimonies given by the accused Manukyan and his relatives.
By assessing the injury of T. Manukyan, the Senior Investigator K. Sharoyan did not take into consideration the circumstance that injuries have been recorded on the face of T. Manukyan as “scratches on the left frontal region in form of haemorrhage”. Indeed the expert points that the strike was delivered by a blunt instrument; but can scratches occur as a result of hitting by hand? Of course, no! And taking into account the circumsatance that during the whole process of the preliminary investigation T. Manukyan insisted that he carried out repairing at neighbor’s house, furthermore immediately after the incident he went on conducting the repairing, actually the reason of this haemorrhage and especially scratches could occur as a result of his repairing work.
And eventually, after analysing the descriptive parts of the decision on accusation brought against A. Veziryan and the descriptive parts of the Article 118 of RA Cr. Code, it is obvious that even if we suppose that Veziryan hit T. Manukyan in face for one time, this action can’t be assessed and qualified as an action containing the features of Article 118 for the simple reason that objectively a battery can be displayed only by several impacts. One impact can’t be qualified as an action containing features of Article 118. In case of one impact, accusation can be brought only when the injured party has at least short-term health disorder or insignificant loss of the capacity to work. This is an elementary truth, which must know every single student”, – Karapetyants told emphasizing that on June 19th the deputy of the Prosecutor of Shengavit administrative district A. Arakelyan rejected also this complaint. “When we received these 2 complaints, we compared them with each other and just like in the child game we tried to find 7 differences in the contents. The differences were the dates and the words “representative of the aggrevied N. Karapetyants” was further on replaced by “advocate of the accused N. Karapetyants”. The rest of the text was copied word by word; moreover I am sure that in their turn the texts completely were copied from previous responses on other cases given by the same Prosecutor. This is the working style of our Prosecutor’s Office, which has a controlling function. What can we require from an ordinary investigator? I really want to believe, but don’t know whom to”, – Karapetyants concluded.
Information source: Epress.am.