Паст инфо

Grigor Petrosyan in February 2010 betraying the trust of a group of students of the State Conservatory after Komitas and its staff, took from them a large sum of money in the amount of 1, 380,800 AMD under pretence of ensuring their participation in the guest performance in Canada.

Fraud victims appealed to the law enforcement bodies.

During the investigation the Court of First Instance takes into consideration both the nature of the crime and the high level of public danger, and his personal characteristics. Grigor Petrosyan ‘is described positively, he does not have previous conviction record or blemish, also compensated the caused property damage to the part of the victims in the whole amount’.
At the same time the court did not state any aggravating circumstances and handed down a sentence for 2 years of imprisonment of G. Petrosyan.

G. Petrosyan’s advocate S. Harutyunyan did not agree with the judgment of the Court of First Instance. He found that the Court of General Jurisdiction should have used the conventional form of punishment towards the defendant instead of imprisonment, and filed a lawsuit to the Court of Appeal. However the appeal was rejected and the judgment of the Court of First Instance preserved its legal force.

The advocate filed a new complaint to the Court of Cassation against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Cassation states that ‘the decision of the Court of Cassation regarding the raised issue can have a significant meaning in the uniform application of the law’ and starts its examination.

Having heard the circumstances of the case based on the provided facts states that ‘the victims of the crime committed by G. Petrosyan were compensated to the full extent’, whereas the Court of Appeal ‘stated in its judicial act that the caused property damage was partially compensated’, which permitted a ‘significant violation of a Criminal Procedure Law defined by Article 398, Section 1 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code’.

Simultaneously the Court of Cassation brought number of previously discussed precedential cases regarding the type and size of the appointed punishment towards a person, which express relevant positions regarding public danger of the crime and its qualitative nature, the type and form of the guilt, purpose and motivation behind the crime, as well as social relations preserved by the Criminal Code, i.e. factual details of social significance available at the moment of committing crime.

Besides that, it is noted that ‘The main demand of the Court regarding the requirements of fairness is that the punishment should correspond to the level of hazard of the crime and its form’.

The Court of Cassation highlights that the Court of Appeal ‘by non-implementation of conventional punishment made an unreasoned decision, which is not in line with the requirements of Article 358 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code’. It is also noted that ‘the decision on the start of the period of the punishment is one of the important elements of appointing punishment, since the defendant can face adverse and legal consequences worsening his situation as a result of a wrong decision. Besides ‘It follows from Article 69, Section 3 of the Criminal Code of the RA that before the sentence will come into force by law, the term of the arrest of the person fully counts in the imprisonment term’.

The Court of Cassation concludes that ignoring this matter can have legal consequences for G. Petrosyan worsening his situation. Thus, taking this and other provisions and requirements of the law as a ground, the CC reports that ‘The Court of First Instance permitted an obvious and gross breach in appointing the punishment’.

Taking into account presented and a number of other circumstances, as well as based on Article 92 of the RA Constitution, a number of articles of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Cassation partially satisfies advocate’s complaint, and overrules the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the defendant G. Petrosyan and sends the case for a new investigation.