Armenian President invited a meeting on the issues related to the pretrial investigation of criminal cases

On October 30 Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan invited a meeting at the RA Prosecutor’s Office with the participation of the representatives of the law enforcement bodies. The meeting was dedicated to the issues related to the pretrial investigation of criminal cases. Press service of Armenian President informs about this. 

Underscoring at the beginning of the meeting that successful resolution of the pretrial investigation issues is conditioned mainly by the proper implementation of the exceptional functions of the procurator’s supervision, the President of Armenia along with mentioning observable positive changes in the activities of the public prosecutor’s office related to the fight against certain crimes, harshly criticized still existing negative occurrences which are taking place because of negligence or actions with underlying evil intentions by some of the prosecutors.

“Overall, the prosecutor’s office remains among those state structures which are able to demonstrate in their activities small but still certain positive results. It is proved, in particular, by progress noted by the international structures in our fight against money laundering and trafficking. Success has also been registered in the cooperation with other law enforcement bodies aimed at the strengthening of the legal structure. Works of the Military Prosecutor’s Office has also shown definite improvement.

Examples like these prove once again that diligent and honest prosecutors, who present a considerable number in this structure, realize the mission assumed before the society and the state and carry out that mission conscientiously.

However I should also note that negligence or evil intentions of some prosecutors still remain a problem and, unfortunately, do not meet a proper judgment. I would like to remind that during the last December meeting while discussing issues related to the quality of pretrial investigation and efficiency of the procurator’s supervision, this problem was particularly emphasized and it was proposed to undertake effective measures to fight it. Although some steps have been taken on this direction including persecution of those guilty, the extent of the negative occurrences has not subsided. One special conclusion is that some individuals simply didn’t draw lessons from all this. They didn’t draw lessons because inside the prosecutor’s office I don’t see resolute struggle against these happenings.

It is obvious that during the pretrial investigation, the prosecutor has a serious role to play; the representatives of the pretrial bodies are here and you all understand quite well that in this process everyone has a share of responsibility.

In this short period of time, after going through the complaints and appeals received from the citizens, the Presidential Staff conducted an inspection and revealed in the pretrial practices facts which are simply inconsistent with sound logic. As if it’s not enough that instead of revealing facts related to the criminal case, the officials in charge have been changing the circumstances of the crime by passing off certain facts, they also have been patronizing the criminalize and covering up the crimes. Furthermore, in some instances unrelated persons have been charged for crimes. I cannot imagine a fouler or a more wicked deed on behalf of a person who works in a law enforcement establishment. Today, we will hear of these facts.

Only a two- or three-months long investigation of your activities has revealed that, for instance,

• with the connivance of a prosecutor, a number of persons incriminated in a crime have become witnesses; and sometimes not with just connivance but through his direct participation,

• instead of fighting crimes, a prosecutor himself conducts crimes and becomes a wanted person. And it looks like nobody is held responsible for that – neither his immediate boss, nor other officials at the prosecutor’s office who ex officio have the responsibility to conduct supervision of the prosecutor’s activities,

• next, instead of supervising the execution of justice, they engage in a squabble with a representative of another law enforcement body in an unacceptably insolent manner, even though I assume a “squabble” is not the proper word in this case. The police employee has been invited through his boss’s order to the office and was slapped, i.e. beaten up. And I have to personally interfere to make sure that that particular person is not only charged with criminal offence but also is fired from the prosecutor’s office. If a prosecutor assumes that he can conduct a lynching, what can a prosecutor demand from others?

• next, appearing in a situation inconsistent with the prosecutor’s position, he enjoys impunity, i.e. if a prosecutor engages in a street fight, understandably after the fact a criminal case is filed and later with the engagement of a non-existent witness through all thinkable and unthinkable means everything is done to try another person.

There is a criminal, wicked trend while working on criminal case all of a sudden to claim a necessity to unearth the circumstances of a 15-year old case. The tax bodies are instructed to examine the activities for the last fifteen years. Hundreds of individuals must be cross-examined when it is absolutely immaterial for that particular case. And this is justified by the need to conduct a comprehensive, inclusive investigation. What’s in it? Go, solve the crime.

And these are only some of the registered cases. Can anyone explain to me how can such atmosphere exist in a law enforcement body? It simply means that some have become too haughty. If a prosecutor’s deputy in a marz believes that he can get away with it, I cannot think otherwise,” the President of Armenia said.

The participants of the meeting were familiarized with the findings of the RA Presidential Staff regarding the practical issues in the pretrial investigation of criminal cases. Presented objective data and their comprehensive examination allowed to conclude that:

• those officials responsible for the pretrial investigation of criminal cases do not execute in a proper fashion or do not execute at all their judicial powers,

• in the course of investigating grave or the gravest crimes, the requirement of a comprehensive, inclusive and objective investigation is being infringed,

• as a result, problems outlined by the RA Criminal Trial Code are solved insufficiently – persons charged for crimes do not carry criminal responsibility, innocent persons are being charged guilty and unnecessarily are being subjected to the restriction of their rights,

• those officials, who allow violations in the course of their professional activities, are not subjected to appropriate responsibility and may stay unpunished,

• those directly engaged in the law enforcement activities do not demonstrate initiatives related to the development of the measures aimed at the improvement of their performance and enhancement of their efficiency.

Considering the nature of the registered problems and associated consequences, the President of Armenia gave specific instructions to the concrete officials aimed at the addressing the situation.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Serzh Sargsyan underscored that he expects considerate attitude on behalf of the RA Prosecutor General, his Deputies, those responsible for investigations. “I demand principled stance from you all. Each one must be responsible and it must be registered.

Based on the results demonstrated in the first three months of 2012, we will speak again about the quality of investigations and concrete facts,” President Serzh Sargsyan underscored.

Հետևեք մեզ նաև Telegram-ում