Edmon Marukyan: Initial Characterization Aimed to Reject Criminal Case Initiation Regarding May 8 Events

Edmon Marukyan, the leader of the 'Enlightened Armenia' faction, responded on his Facebook page to the decision to reject the initiation of a criminal case regarding the events that took place in the National Assembly on May 8, 2020.

The Special Investigation Service of Armenia rejected the initiation of a criminal case regarding the well-known events in the National Assembly on May 8, based on the position of the Armenian Supreme Court, stating that a single blow cannot be classified as assault (Supreme Court decision of November 1, 2012, case number ARD/0176/01/11).

In this context, it is necessary to address several issues. First, according to Article 118 of the RA Criminal Code, assault or other violent actions are criminally prosecutable acts (if they do not result in short-term impairment of health or insignificant permanent loss of general working capacity). Thus, if the actions against Edmon Marukyan on May 8 are classified as assault, they could have been characterized differently had it been accepted that he indeed received a single blow that caused him physical pain.

Secondly, it is significant that Edmon Marukyan received not one, but multiple blows from different individuals. Moreover, this fact was witnessed not only by the officials present in the parliament that day but also by thousands of citizens following the live broadcast. The recording of the incident has been circulated in the media and is currently available online. There can be no doubt for viewers regarding the events that occurred, and it is impossible to manipulate the facts of the occurrence through that recording.

In any case, Article 118 is among private prosecution cases according to the first part of Article 183 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code. We believe that what occurred goes beyond the domain of private prosecution, and therefore we do not consider the events as a case of private prosecution, nor have we filed a complaint in that regard.

Thirdly, it is at least obvious to us that an initial characterization was set in place so that the rejection of the criminal case initiation could be justified by the absence of a crime. However, the qualification of the discussed case should have been entirely different. Specifically, Article 258 of the RA Criminal Code provides for criminal liability for actions manifesting gross contempt for society, explicitly committed with intent to grossly violate public order (hooliganism). Furthermore, according to the second and third parts of the same article, a more severe punishment is imposed for the same action if accompanied by violence against a person or the threat of violence (…) committed by a group of individuals (…) (qualified hooliganism).

The Supreme Court of Armenia has elaborated on the composition of hooliganism in the decision made on March 30, 2012, in case number AVD/0014/01/11. Correlating the analytical part of that decision with the factual composition of events in the parliament, it becomes clear that the actions of MP Sasun Mikayelyan should have been qualified under the second part of Article 258, while the actions of the others who inflicted blows should have been qualified under the third part of the same article. The threats of violence against a parliament member executing his constitutional powers, i.e., giving a speech, followed by the blows inflicted on him by various individuals in the presence of other MPs, the Prime Minister, members of the government, and others, knowing that the session was being broadcast live and accessible to an unlimited number of people, cannot be qualified otherwise.

This is a classic case of qualified hooliganism, a crime directed against public order and morality. The actions under discussion grossly violated public order and manifested an open contemptuous attitude towards society. As a result, the normal functioning of the legislative body was primarily violated.

The violence directed against the opposition faction leader was used as a tool by the perpetrators to silence opposing voices, and this is an evident example of obstructing the constitutional powers of the 'Enlightened Armenia' faction in the National Assembly. The events that took place will have legal consequences—if not in today’s reality, then in the future.