The Criminal Court of Appeals did not change the decision made by the First Instance Court of Kentron and Nork-Marash Communities, by which “Hraparak” daily and “Ilur” website were being obliged to uncover the source of information.
These two media have transmitted an information that on May 7 Chief of Police Vardan Nadaryan in an unsober condition threatened wrestler, Olympic medal-winner Arthur Aleksanyan and his brother Rafael Aleksanyan with a gun, and then hit Rafael Aleksanyan with the gun hilt.
The Prosecutor`s Office initiated a criminal case, but didn`t present charges to anyone, and instead applied to the court with an intervention to identify sources of information. The Court of First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash communities ruled that the two media identify the source of information. These media means appealed this decision in the Court of Appeals, which didn`t change the decision.
“Rule of Law” NGO member Artak Zeynalyan, defending the interests of “Hraparak” daily and “Ilur” website in the court, informed Iravaban.net taht the Court of Appeals violated certain rights getting out of its competences. “The court was obliged to study the case in the form of cassation. But the court just proofread the issues we raised, so the Court of First Instance, Court of Appeals, Prosecutor`s office and Preliminary Investigation body became one unity. They don`t have to correct each other`s mistakes, the Court of Appeals should have just evaluated the lawfulness of their actions, and in case of unlawfulness – cancel that decision”, said the lawyer.
Mr. Zeynalyan also mentioned: “European Court also spoke on this matter, we referred to the European Court, but the Prosecution`s representative said such expressions as if the complainant could not prove how it could influence the freedom of speech, if the source of information is uncovered. Can you imagine, in the 21st century a Prosecutor in the party to the Convention announces such things, this is just a shame. This is one of the cases where the defendant is guilty just because he could not prove his innocence. They are not aware of the Presumption of innocence”. Mr. Zeynalyan also added they are going to appeal the decision in the Court of Cassation.
Lawyer Arman Danielyan stated that in certain cases the Court can require to reveal the source of information. “But this uncovering should stem from public interests, meaning it should be higher than the freedom of speech. This happens rarely”.
