In the court of first instance of Aragatsotn region the closed trial of the criminal case on under-aged girl rape and torture was finished. Yesterday both the prosecution and the defendant made speeches. The prosecution found that father is guilty for the rape and the torture of his under-aged daughter and requested from the court for 7 year imprisonment.

We should mention that even though her father had undergone inhuman treatment and torture in the police, he did not accept his "guilt", and 18 year old and 22 year old daughters were not able to bear 4 day torture in Kentron police station /read in our previous articles/ and "accepted their guilt". Later they filed an appeal to the chief prosecutor's office for getting testimonies through violence exerted towards them in the police station.

The interests of S. D, the father, are presented by an attorney Khanum Mkrtchyan, who claims that the accusation is not substantiated and there are no evidences that proof the father's guilt. The prosecution based its accusation on the testimony given by a woman named Hasmik, whom the daughter had allegedly told about the happened incident. This witness has given contradictory testimonies in the court.

"The prosecution did not have any basis, just several sections from the indictment"- the attorney told us during our talk.

We would like also to add that according to our information, this witness whose name was Hasmik works closely with the chief prosecutor's office, with the police. Moreover, according to our information, this woman came regularly to the court with the investigator Ruben Vardanyan, as well as one of the basic "actors" of the "torturing" Erik Poghosyan's cars and accompaniment (the latter became known to the public as a victim policeman from "the case of the Seven" and other related cases as well as from the case of Tigran Arakelyan).

Yet during the pre-trial phase the victim girls have filed complaints about the fact of being tortured, but they were left without any attention. The media also reflected on 18 year old girl's fact of torture, but the chief prosecutor's office has a selective attitude towards the media publications.

Before the arguments presentation in the court, on November 30 the Chief Prosecutor's office had disseminated an inquiry where there was a reference to the author of "Iravunk" newspaper A. Abgaryan, who represented the victim (the girls) in the court. In the inquiry legal violations of the latter were mentioned, "the victim's representative, A. Abgaryan, exceeding his functions, takes on actions that are more characteristic of a defense. It is obvious that the prosecutor's office has disseminated the inquiry with one purpose to reconfirm the accusation with force, and to form public opinion".

Yet on the day of the closed trial representatives of the prosecutor's office, Arthur Ghambaryan and Sergey Sargsyan, talked with the representative of the victim in a threatening tone, showing their excellent legal knowledge. It is possible that Abgaryan has less legal knowledge but his efforts are directed at administration of justice, and human rights protection, which lacks Special Investigatory Service and Chief Prosecutor's office.

There is no need to reflect on the inquiry disseminated by the Chief Prosecutor's Office in detail. It shows the indictment, but we would like to point out an incident mentioned in the inquiry, "In 2009, on May 7 victim Sh. D. of a criminal case came to the central department of the police...", was mentioned in the inquiry, but Sh. D-n did not come to the police voluntarily. The policemen made her come by a deceit".

We would like also to mention about another important factor concerning this case, when on September 1 the trial was launched, police with a silent consent of the chief prosecutor's office, tried to kidnap 18 year old girl just at the court building. A question arises-why? The answer to the question is quite clear; to implement another séance of torture, and threatening, so that the girl would not refuse her pre-trial testimonies.
This is shown by a fact that they were able to kidnap and keep for 1 hour
as a hostage the sister. They demanded her to tell what they wanted to hear. We are aware of skills and experience of law enforcement bodies to
kidnap the witnesses from scandalous March 1 trials. A long time has not passed yet, and this experience can still be implemented, particularly towards unprotected people.
By the way, in September, during the phase when attacks were organized by the police on the court, 18 year old Sh. D. and her sister T.D. who is a witness in this case, applied to the Human Rights Defender's office and wrote explanations about torture exerted towards them in the police station. The Human Rights Defender's office applied to the Special Investigatory Service itself. As it had to be expected the answer was as follows "During the investigation the allegation of witness T. D. about threatening and torturing, and getting the testimony by force submitted to the chief prosecutor's office was checked and rejected". In this case SIS has not implemented the actions that were guaranteed to this body by law even formally.

It is not clear for attorney Khanum Mkrtchyan this type of answer of SIS in this case, when no investigative actions have carried out. "Nobody was called to the interrogation, neither the father nor the girls. They had to prepare materials about the actions of the investigator, had to conduct interrogations about the allegations of the torture to confirm or reject these allegations", says the attorney.

On December 17, at 13:00 the court of first instance of Aragatsotn region (c. Ashtarak) presided by judge Ruzanna Barseghyan, will announce the court decision. The release of the court decision will be done in an open trial. Whether the court will be free from the pressures of the prosecutor's office, and will administer justice. The answer to this question is known to everybody, but it is better to hope that everything is possible. 

Zhanna Aleksanyan

P.S. One may remember a case when in 2004 from Vanadzor city Armen Petrosyan (was convicted for raping an under-aged girl ) received a decision of acquittal. Testimonies were received from him by force, the accusation was substantiated and he was released. The accusation was confirmed by the same prosecutor's office, with the same chief. But about 6 years later the real criminal was found, and Armen Petrosyan was released. In short the end of this case is more romantic than the beginning. After the release Armen Petrosyan had a meeting with the chief prosecutor Aghvan Hovsepyan who compensated the years lost by Armen as well as moral harm by giving the book of Alexandre Dyuma "The count Monte Cristo". Considering the fact that this case can also receive public attention, different trial ending is not excluded. So the prosecutor still has time to think what fiction to present before the public.