Why Yuri Khachaturov's Exit from Armenia Was Not Allowed: Clarification

Yuri Khachaturov's exit from Armenia was not permitted because there was no authorization formulated by the body conducting the proceedings. This was stated in a clarification issued by the police.

In the clarification, it was specifically mentioned: “Numerous media outlets, referring to the defendant's attorney in the criminal case, have published information that the accused Yuri Khachaturov was not allowed to cross the border of the Republic of Armenia, despite the existence of a legal decision from the court allowing his exit.”

“We find it necessary to clarify that the defendant Yuri Khachaturov’s exit was not permitted because there was no authorization from the body conducting the proceedings, officially formulated as a decision through proper procedural documentation.”

Article 143, part 6 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that if the accused has fled from the body conducting the criminal proceedings or has left without permission, the prosecutor applies to the court with a request to confiscate the bail as state revenue. It is evident from the aforementioned that the accused, for whom bail is selected as a preventive measure, may leave only with the authorization of the body conducting the proceedings. This authorization must be expressed in no other way than through the corresponding procedural document—a decision.

However, in this case, such a decision has not been made, and the letter from the court to the Main Department of Criminal Investigation of the Police of the Republic of Armenia was not based on such a procedural decision.

The approach that exit permission must be reflected through appropriate procedural documentation—formulated as a decision—derives from the logic of Article 143 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, in which the legislator uses the term “allow” multiple times, considering the expression of this as a court decision. For example, the first part of the same article stipulates that immovable property may be accepted as bail with court permission. And the condition of allowing immovable property to serve as collateral can exclusively be expressed through a court decision recognizing the bail as permissible.

Moreover, the requirement to document whether the accused is allowed to leave is also derived from the necessity to secure its justification and reasoning. The legality of allowing the accused to leave and precisely the protection of their rights imply that the court’s position on allowing or disallowing the departure must be justified and articulated in a suitable document that can provide grounds for contestation, which is also absent in this case.