Case History: Tigran Hayrapetyan
Human rights lawyer Mr Tigran Hayrapetyan has been informed about a criminal case which was opened against him by the Special Investigative Agency. The lawyer has been accused of hindering the running of an investigation by submitting too many petitions and asking provocative questions. The investigation was subsequently abruptly terminated.
Tigran Hayrapetyan is a human rights lawyer who provides legal assistance in cases of civil and political rights violations, which includes defending the rights of members of the “Pre-Parliament” opposition movement and victims of mistreatment.
On 25 August 2015, the Investigative Committee of Armenia terminated the criminal case against the human rights lawyer Tigran Hayrapetyan, which was opened in May 2015. The lawyer was accused of hindering the running of an investigation by submitting too many petitions and asking provocative questions.
The Special Investigative Agency, which investigates procedural irregularities as well as crimes committed by judicial, legislative or executive representatives, on 27 May 2015 opened the criminal case against Tigran Hayrapetyan on the alleged basis that the human rights lawyer had not followed the correct procedure while representing his client, Ms Julietta Amarikyan, who was allegedly ill-treated in a psychiatric clinic.
During the investigation, Tigran Hayrapetyan asked the investigators and members of the medical commission, which had to examine Julietta Amarikyan, several questions relating to the case. However, these questions were considered “provocative”, and the investigators later filed a complaint against him, arguing that he was interfering with the investigation. Moreover, they argued that he had submitted too many petitions relating to the case, which further hindered the progress of the investigation.
Human rights lawyer Mr Tigran Hayrapetyan has been informed about a criminal case which was opened against him by the Special Investigative Agency.
The lawyer has been accused of hindering the running of an investigation by submitting too many petitions and asking provocative questions.
On 11 August 2015, the human rights defender gave an interview about the criminal case against him to a local radio station. On 27 July 2015, he had been summoned for questioning by an Investigative Committee, who informed him about the criminal case. From the case-related materials, which he was given by the Investigator, he learned that the investigation relates to his legitimate activities as a lawyer. He is accused of violating Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Armenia (hindering the administration of justice and progress of an investigation). If charged, he faces up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine of 500 Euro.
On 27 May 2015, Investigator Mejlumjan of the Special Investigative Agency, which investigates procedural irregularities as well as crimes committed by judicial, legislative or executive representatives, had opened the criminal case against him on the alleged basis that the human rights lawyer had not followed the correct procedure while representing his client, Ms Julietta Amarikyan, hindering the running of an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of Julietta Amarikyan in a psychiatric clinic. She had been wrongfully committed to the psychiatric clinic by court order following a property dispute with her brother in November 2014. Tigran Hayrapetyan took up her case and managed to obtain her release from the clinic. Furthermore, he successfully appealed the court decision to declare that Julietta Amarikyan had a mental illness and to force her to undergo psychiatric treatment.
The Special Investigative Agency subsequently opened an investigation into the court decision to commit Julietta Amarikyan to a psychiatric clinic, as well as her ill-treatment while she was there. In the context of the ongoing investigation, Julietta Amarikyan was obliged to undergo a further medical examination. During the examination, Tigran Hayrapetyan asked the investigators and members of the examining commission several questions relating to the case. However, these questions were considered “provocative”, and the investigators later filed a complaint against him, arguing that he was interfering with the investigation. Moreover, they argued that he had submitted too many petitions relating to the case, which further hindered the progress of the investigation. In total he had submitted three petitions, whereby he requested that an independent expert be included in the medical examination team.
