Паст инфо

“Custody as a preventive measure should be applied only in exceptional cases. While the courts in Armenia choose custody regarding persons as a preventive measure without any proof from the criminal case” advocate Lusine Sahakyan said.

According to Article 135 of Criminal Procedure Code preventive measures can be applied only in case when materials obtained from the case give sufficient grounds to believe that a suspect or an accused may interfere in the pre-trial proceedings or case studies in the court or commit an act unauthorized by criminal law while being in freedom.

“If there are no materials obtained from the criminal case indicating that a person being in freedom can commit an act prescribed by Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code investigating authority cannot apply any preventive measure,  the more so choose a custody as a measure of restraint” the advocate stated.

According to her custody can be applied only when conditions of Article 135 are applicable, and when the investigating authority clearly states that any other preventive measure will not be effective. At the same time there must be a reasonable doubt.

“According to Criminal Procedure Code, Article 5 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as a number of conclusions of the European Court it is clearly defined why the Court chose custody as a preventive measure, and why other preventive measure cannot be effective” said L. Sahakyan, adding that the reason in not the legal field, but the convicting direction.

“The courts are completely dependent on the Prosecutor General’s Office, if the investigating authorities make mediation to the court, the courts satisfy them in general. The RA courts must be independent and guided by law. Courts must be courts” the advocate finalized.

Advocates repeatedly protested the facts of applying custody as a preventive measure, but the problem still remains. Ombudsman also alarmed this issue. The Human Rights Defender’s annual report the following is mentioned “It is perplexing that Prosecutor General’s Office gives priority to custody as a preventive measure, when custody must be considered in exceptional cases, and when other measures of restraint cannot guarantee proper behaviour of the defendant during the conduct of criminal proceedings”.

For your information
“Pastinfo” agency has already informed about the Deputy Prosecutor General Mnacakan Sargsyan’s proposal about the re-examination of applying custody as a preventive measure in some kinds of embezzlement during the RA Prosecutor General’s Office board’s meeting.