Clarification from the Chief Prosecutor's Advisor: Why No Criminal Case was Initiated Regarding the Incident with Alvina Gyulumyan

The Chief Prosecutor's advisor, Gor Abrahamyan, has published a clarification on his Facebook page regarding the criticism heard in recent days as to why a criminal case had been initiated concerning Judge Anna Danibekyan, while no such case was opened regarding the incident involving Constitutional Court member Alvina Gyulumyan.

“Given the various speculations surrounding the comparison of the incidents involving Constitutional Court member Alvina Gyulumyan on June 5 of this year and Judge Anna Danibekyan of the General Jurisdiction Court of Yerevan on the evening of September 27, we find it necessary to explain the following:

The incident involving Alvina Gyulumyan has become the subject of scrutiny in terms of the existence of criminal compositions outlined in Articles 316, 332, 343, and 225.1 of the RA Criminal Code based on a report submitted by a citizen during a protest action held in front of the RA Constitutional Court, regarding being pushed and thrown down on June 5, 2019. As a result, the investigative body decided to deny the initiation of a criminal case against the citizen due to the absence of the aforementioned compositions.

The RA Court of Cassation expressed a legal stance on Article 316 of the RA Criminal Code in a precedent-setting ruling dated December 16, 2014, stating that an act can only qualify as ‘violence against a representative of authority’ under this article when the act of violence is associated with the representative of authority performing their official duties. The legislator has demonstrated the same approach in defining the compositions of obstructing the administration of justice (Article 332 of the RA Criminal Code) and exhibiting disrespect towards a judge (Article 343, part 3 of the RA Criminal Code). Thus, these compositions exist only in cases where there is any form of interference in the examination of a specific case, and insults against a judge are related to the exercise of their official powers. Criticism of the court’s or law enforcement’s activities or negative assessments of decisions made by them cannot be deemed as interference.

In her explanation, Alvina Gyulumyan stated that although offensive expressions were uttered during the incident with the participants of the action, these were not directed at her personally. In other words, it has been determined that the participants expressed their dissatisfaction not in relation to the examination of a specific case, but rather concerning the judicial system. The participants expressed their objections in front of the RA Constitutional Court, which was not aimed at insulting judges in connection with the performance of their duties, nor at influencing the course of a specific court case. Furthermore, no violence was used against representatives of power by the participants of the action. Under these circumstances, the initiation of a criminal case under the above articles against the participants by the investigative body has been justifiably considered subject to denial due to the absence of criminal composition in the act.

In contrast, on September 27, 2019, based on the report made by Judge Anna Danibekyan at the Shengavit Division of the Police, a criminal case was initiated regarding N. Mutafyan and S. Ohanyan, charging them under Article 332, part 1 of the RA Criminal Code for having conducted specific actions aimed at obstructing justice by tracking Judge Danibekyan's whereabouts, following her for days in various parts of the city, and during the night in the park adjacent to Komitas Pantheon, while she was returning home alone, making degrading and insulting remarks about her honor and dignity, specifically mocking her by claiming to have witnessed her being hit with a stick, all of which were streamed live and directly related to the criminal case concerning ‘Robert Kocharian and others’ under the judge’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the investigation still needs to fully clarify the comprehensive and actual purposes of tracking the judge and determining her whereabouts. The disrespect shown by these individuals towards Anna Danibekyan manifested directly in relation to the judge’s exercise of her powers.

In this regard, the comparisons made between the two incidents and the ensuing reflections on selective approaches based on these issues are unfounded and unjustified,” he wrote.