The courts last two years satisfied about 95% petitions of the choosing the arrest as a way of restraint for person. It is a high and worrying indicator especially if the considerable amount of the petitions is groundless.
“Mostly, the reason is that the body of preliminary examination which brings the procedure and has the opportunity not to apply the petition initially, mainly in the case of crimes of medium gravity they decide to file a petition to the court, explain that the court must decide but, as we know, that our court is not fair (except a few judges) generally these petitions are satisfied” mentioned Advocate Inessa Petrosyan, in the interview with Iravaban.net.
The Deputy Ombudsman Armen Grigoryan also says that nowadays two types of restraint are often used: arrest and signature of not leaving although the Criminal Code applies as well other means. The main reason is the low efficiency of that means of restraint. There is also one reason: “By the new contemporary legislative regulation, the basis for choosing all the means of restraint are general. Thus, there are no separate bases for the arrest, for the signature and also for personal guarantee… If all the bases are the same both the arrest and the signature for not leaving so the same bases must be for applying.”
But the Advocate Inessa Petrosyan mentions as well that these petitions are later satisfied by the court and they are groundless. Recently, Iravaban.net came across to the case, according to which the Court of First Instance 4 times satisfied the displace of the person’s arrest restraint by the pledge but the Court of Appeals 3 times annulled the decision and that person was again arrested. Only after our publications for the fourth time the Superior Court did not annul the decision of displacing arrest by the pledge.
“We think differently; if the serious crime is inculpated then the arrest is necessity. But it is not so; there are criteria, legislation to which it must correspond. Concerning this special case, the person was never late for the trial, never obstructed, never avoided, vice versa, and always wanted that trial would have fair” mentions the lawyer.
The Deputy Ombudsman mentions as well that the main dissatisfaction is connected with the groundless decisions of satisfying petitions: “While satisfying the restraint of the arrest by the court the bases noted in the law are just enumerated but the factual data and proofs substantiating it are not introduced. Thus, the basis is just mentioned which will obstruct the process of the examination but substantiating facts are not mentioned. For instance, the witness’s phone must be tapped which will prove that the accused threatened him or tried to phone him for many times; this is a real basis.”
The Experts say that in the draft of legislation on Criminal Proceedings there are some resolutions to the issues in which the list of the restraint means are expanded. There are also new regulations for choosing that.
Astghik Karapetyan
Iravaban.net