Паст инфо

In particular, if after bringing the verdict in the case of intentional grievous, medium or serious crime, but before serve the sentence for previously committed acts, with the presence of the compound offense a new punishment is awarded, the type of correctional facility can not be ‘semi-open,’ since this is not the first case when the person is convicted of a premeditated crime.

 

However, in this case the type of the correctional facility can not be “semi-closed”, because there is no recurrence of the crime. According to the study authors the problem can not be resolved in accordance with RA Law "On Legal Acts", as the law can only solve the contradiction between legal acts and their various parts. In this case there is no contradiction between the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, but problem of incomplete regulation. 

 

Thus, Armen Badalyan, the convict, who was taking his punishment in "Erebuni" penitentiary institution, was sentenced to imprisonment of six years. In this case, A. Badalyan was previously convicted of premeditated crime, but the act does not qualify as a relapse. In this and similar cases by decision of the allocation commission the type of correctional facility was determined “semi-open.” At first glance, it appears that the Commission has acted for the benefit of the prisoner, but are there any risks of corruption here? 

 

In the case of the combination of crimes, according to the research conducted by the RA Prosecutor's Office, the problem of incomplete regulation also arises in determining the type of correctional facility to serve his sentence in case of conviction for another felony. 

 

The legislation has shown a differentiated approach in determining the type of correctional facility to serve the sentence for a serious crime, if convicted for a period less than 10 years and more than 10 years in the first case, the type of correctional facility should be "semi-closed", in the second case - "closed."  However, the legislation did not specify whether or not to take into account the punishment, awarded separately for each crime in case of a divisible crime or the final punishment for a divisible crime. 

 

Thus, Levon Margaryan, the convict, who was taking his punishment in "Erebuni" penitentiary institution, was sentenced to imprisonment of nine years for attempted murder and imprisonment of four year for hooliganism. The final punishment of the divisible crime is imprisonment of 11 years. In this case, taking into account the final punishment the allocation commission chose the type of the correctional facility as “closed.” 

 

According to the research results in another case while determining the type of the correctional facility the allocation commission has taken into account not the final punishment but the punishment,  awarded separately for each crime. Thus, Samvel Batikyan, the prisoner, serving a sentence in "Vardashen," penitentiary institution was allocated in a semi-closed type of the facility. In this particular case they took into account not the final punishment in the form of imprisonment of 13 years but separate punishment for each crime. A similar approach has been applied by the allocation commission towards Araik Voskanyan, who is sentenced to imprisonment of 11 years in "Vardashen" semi-closed correctional facility. In this case we see the double standards, applied by the allocation committee.

 

A similar problem arises while involving convicts in work on the technical and economic services. In particular, Nver Ginovyan, convicted of murder and robbery to the imprisonment of 7.5 years was allocated to a semi-closed type of correctional facility "Hospital for prisoners," and was involved in the technical and economic services. In this case, the allocation committee didn’t take into account the final punishment awarded for the commission of the divisible crime and made decision based on the sentence imposed for a single crime, in particular, for a period of 7 years or less. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, a person convicted of an intentional crime in the form of imprisonment of seven years, might be involved in the provision of technical and economic services. 

 

According to the authors of the research, the approaches of the distribution commission are contradicting and are not in compliance with the acting legal requirements, are theoretically unfounded and methodologically wrong. “In the case of a divisible crime while making decision each time the allocation commission should take into account the final punishment, awarded by the Court. The Commission is not competent to pervert the final punishment, awarded by the court” concluded the department, supervising the legality of the application of other measures of coercion and punishment under the Prosecutor’s Office.