RA Ombudsman: "All perpetrators of the incident with Armen Martirosyan should be called to account"

In the events of April 9, 2013 Human Rights Defender has identified three key legal issues: the legitimacy of closing Baghramyan Avenue, the legality of the drive of 16 protesters to police 16 and full disclosure associated with Armen Martirosyan's incident.

Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan gave his assessment to the above three questions.

Member of "Heritage" party Armen Martirosyan was brought to Arabkir Police Department to administrative liability for failure to obey the lawful demands of police officers in the performance of their duties for the protection of public order.

According to Armen Martirosyan, on April 9 on his part there was not an offense, he identified the police as illegal, unconstitutional and anti-legal.

Ombudsman was reported from the police that on the order of Chief of Police an internal investigation was assigned to discuss the appropriateness of force by the policemen during the incident. It is expected that all citizens, who broke the law during the incident with Armen Martirosyan, regardless of their status and position, will be called to account.

Taking into account the fact that the events that took place on April 9, 2013, received wide publicity, and the provisions of the law "On the defender of human rights", the Ombudsman also asked the police for clarification about the legal validity of the actuator of 16 persons, including Andrias Ghukasyan, in the police station of Yerevan.

In this regard, the Ombudsman stated that the protesters were subjected to drive from the scene of the meeting for the purpose of calling the administrative responsibility and after some time they had been released.

Bringing - a measure of security of the proceedings of an administrative offense, which is forced to transmit to an individual in order to draw up the protocol on administrative violation in the impossibility of making detection of offenses on site. This measure is associated with short-term restriction of freedom of action and movement of an individual that is delivered in a special office.

Thus, in general, in such situations, the drive of individuals is not illegal, but in case of disagreement citizens in some cases may question the actions and decisions of the Police in court.

The Ombudsman asked the Police also to notify how, on what legal basis on 9 April 2013 traffic on Baghramian Avenue of Yerevan was blocked, resulting in the limited right of others of free movement. In connection with this matter, police said that the movement was limited by the order of Mayor in order to ensure the normal course of the inauguration ceremony of the President. The Ombudsman notes that the actions of the police to block Baghramyan Avenue were legitimate, and the decision of Mayor of Yerevan on 04.04.2013 Number 70 could be challenged by the organizers of the march only by court order.