According to the lawyer Arnold Vardanyan, the term “territorial jurisdiction”, which has become a subject for discussions after the 12 January murder in Gyumri, is not identical to the legal regulation of the territorial jurisdiction of marzes.
“It seems that after the various interpretations of the facts that took place during the last days, the legal language should be classified as one in the range of foreign languages,” said the lawyer.
In order to make the situation clearer, he brought a more complicated example. “If a person commits crime let’s say in Brazil, then continues it or commits a new crime in Emirates and finishes the criminal conduct in Mozambique. Here we have a question which state’s law shall apply upon him, and in which state he should be judged. Of course this issue should be solved considering the nature of committed crimes, the objectives and other circumstances, but the priority should be given to the circumstance against which state and its citizens was directed the crime.”
The lawyer believes that a separate preliminary investigation should be conducted in each state in the relation of the crimes, “because the preliminary investigation implies conducting a variety of investigation activities which are clausely related with the place of commitment of crime.”
Further, according to Arnold Vardanyan, connected with the circumstance which state’s law applies upon the definite crime, it shall be decided in which country the person should be called to criminal liability.
“For example, if a remote control bomb is placed in a train that travels from Russia to Armenia, having a purpose of an explosion in the territory of the RA and which causes damages to the RA citizens, the RA shall be considered as the place of the crime. It is obvious that the Armenian Law applies in the RA territory. Pursuant to Article 14 of the RA Criminal Code the RA Law applies on the crimes committed in the territory of the Republic of Armenia unless an international treaty of the Republic of Armenia prescribes otherwise.” Mr. Vardanyan said.According to him Article 4 of the Interstate Agreement signed between the RA and RF referring to the Russian Military Base, provides that the alleged crimes committed by the soldiers of the Russian Military Base, are subject to consideration by the RA law enforcement body, except for the military offences, which are subject to be considered by the RF law enforcement bodies. The Lawyer explains, “That is in case of the military offences committed by the Russian soldier, desertion and deliberate murder of two or more persons in the territory of the RA, thus the preliminary investigation on the fact of desertion shall be conducted by the Russian law enforcement bodies, and that on the deliberate murder shall be conducted by the RA law enforcement bodies. At the same time I think that the preliminary investigation of both cases shall be carried out jointly by operative investigation groups, that is under the provisions of Article 63 of the Treaty on Legal Aid on Civil, Family and Criminal Cases signed in 2002 by the CIS member states, which provides: aimed at prompts and thorough investigation of the crimes conducted by one or more persons in the territories of one or more Contracting Parties, joint operative investigation groups may be created.”
Hear, according the lawyer the following question remains open due to the fact that the criminal proceedings initiated upon the fact and not against a person, then which fact is considered the basis by the Russian law enforcers initiating a criminal case on the murder against the person who committed the crime of murder (except the desertion), which is committed in the territory of the RA and was directed against the RA citizens.
“Now let’s consider the legality of the fact that the offender who committed the crime is now under the control of the Russian law enforcement bodies. Desertion is a lusting offense under the criminal law theory, which ends with the arrest of the person or with the person’s surrender date. Deliberate murder of two or more persons under criminal law theory is considered a lasting offense and actually ends with the killing of the last person. This means that the crimes committed by Russian soldiers with his arrest de facto and de jure were over in the RA territory. Now the following question is, on what basis the Russian soldier is currently in the Russian military base, and not in one of the prisons in the territory of Armenia. That is, the person who had committed the offense should have been under the jurisdiction of the RA law enforcement agencies. And if we speak in terms of surrender, then not the Armenian but rather the Russian side should ask for surrendering the person who committed the crime,” the lawyer stressed.
Referring to the question where Valery Permyakov should be called to criminal liability, Arnold Vardanyan said, “Under the provisions of Article 66 of the Treaty on Legal Aid on Civil, Family and Criminal Cases, the Contracting Parties undertake obligation, in accordance with the conditions provided for by the Convention, and on the corresponding request of the other Party, to surrender to that Party the individuals that are in their territory, for calling to criminal liability or for execution of the judgment.That is for each of the crimes committed the Russian servicemen shall be called to criminal responsibility according to the each crime by the judgment of the court of the state that has jurisdiction over that specific crime, that is by the RA Court for the crime of committing a murder of two or more people and by the RA Court for desertion.”
