On 27 January, advocate Givi Hovhannisyan, defender of the rights of doctor Lilit Vardanyan, who was accused in the death of a 2,5 years old Liah Misakyan, filed a petition to attach a number of documents to the criminal case.
Today the Court of General Jurisdiction of Arabkir and Kanaker-Nork Marash Administrative Districts of Yerevan continued the hearing in the framework of the mentioned criminal case, where in addition to Lilit Vardanyan, doctor Zarine Ayvazyan was involved as well.
The documents that Givi Hovhannisyan presented referred to the activities undertaken from the very day of admission of the child to the hospital as well as to those carried out during the following days, and specifying the eights and duties of the doctor and the nurses.
On 31 December 2012, Lia Misakyan had a fever and shocks, when he was brought to the hospital by the ambulance. She died on 2 January 2013.
According to the documents the doctor carried out her duties duly. In addition the advocate introduced a conclusion signed by the podiatrist professor A. Sargsyan of the same hospital, who concluded that the result of the repeated forensic examination was flawed. As an example the advocate cited the fact that according to the procedure during the autopsy at least 5 sample pieces of the child’s lungs should have been taken, whereas only two pieces were taken. The professor had also mentioned that the child’s treatment and diagnosis were carried out correctly.
The judge did not object to the advocate’s petition to attach the documents to the criminal case. The accusation did not object either. The representative of the injured party asked to provide time to get acquainted with the documents and then provide a new opinion.
After the break, the victim’s legal representative Arthur Sakuts objected to attaching the 3 documents to the case, including the professor’s writing. He stressed that it was a subjective approach.
The court considered Givi Hovhannisyan’s petition found it grounded and subject to be satisfied. Judge Levon Avetisyan attached the mentioned documents to the criminal case.
Arthur Sakunts, said that the court showed obviously biased attitude to the defense side.