Today an exclusive incident happened during the court session on 30-year-old R. G.’s case who is accused of hooliganism: The defendant refused to give testimony saying that he does not want the court hearing to be covered by media.
Before this, his attorney Inessa Petrosyan filed a motion to allow the defendant to write down his testimony since at the previous hearing his testimony was somewhat emotional due to personal circumstances. The court granted the motion. Then the attorney said that the defendant also wanted to present photos and a video to the court regarding the behavior of the people on the spot, in the summerhouse in the front of the building, the under-age boy’s injury on the spot, and the first aid he received. A computer was needed to display these materials, and a short break was announced to deliver a computer to the court room.
After the break ended, the prosecutor filed a petition as well: He mentioned in his speech that the defendant’s testimony at the previous hearing made him suspicious about his criminal sanity which is why he wanted him to undergo forensic psychological and psychiatric examination. But the court did not consider this motion as the prosecutor had not presented the questions to the experts in written form.
Before testifying, R. G. filed a motion to forbid the Iravaban.net reporter to cover the session as he did not want his testimony to appear on the Internet. He mentioned that before the previous hearings he had asked us not to write his name but we did. Anyway, as you can see in this very publication, we omit his first name and last name just like we did in previous publications, respecting his request.
The court, presided by judge Davit Harutyunyan, replied that it was not authorized to limit the professional activities of a journalist and testifying or not testifying was at his discretion. R. G. said that he can present his testimony to the court in written form, but the court informed him that it must be public and they could not accept it otherwise. R. G. refused to testify.
The correspondent of Iravaban.net told the presiding judge that she wanted to leave the court room as she understood that testifying was in the defendant’s best interests, even though she had a right to remain in the court room. The court said that the choice was ours.
We would like to mention that this case is in center of our attention because of the fact that during the preliminary investigation and the judicial investigation the Court of First Instance granted the 3 petitions of the defense regarding the replacement of arrest with release on bail. On the basis of the prosecutor’s complaint, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Court of First Instance three times, and the person was taken into custody again.
The Court of Appeal rejected the prosecutor’s demand for the fourth time, after the popular publication on Iravaban.net about the decision of the Court of First Instance on the replacement of arrest with bail that got appealed by the prosecution.
