August 23, 2013 issue of Hraparak Daily published an article entitled Corruption in the Prosecutor’s Office of Yerevan, in which the author, Sona Harutyunyan, referred to the statement made by Hakob Charoyan, defense attorney of Ofelya Khachatryan, accused of usury. Namely, Hakob Charoyan claims that V.Lachinyan, senior investigator of the Serious Crimes Investigation Unit of the Yerevan City Department of the General Department of Criminal Investigation, in charge of the case on his defendant, has committed several obviously serious violations during the investigation of the case thus relieving the real culprits of liability. The given fact being “overlooked” by the prosecutors in charge of the case, Lachinyan’s act can be qualified as a criminal offence pursuant to the Criminal Code of RA, Articles 336 and 351.
The defense attorney also claims that he made two reports to the Special Investigatory Service of RA, which were denied for different reasons, whereas, in fact, a case must be initiated based on the report; as a result, either the investigator or the one having made the report, namely the defense attorney, should be subject to liability for false allegation.
Given the fact that the defense attorney’s claim is related to the Special Investigatory Service, we find it necessary to clarify the given issue.
From June to July 2013 two claims with identical contents entitled “Report on Crime” were actually submitted to the Special Investigatory Service of RA by the defense attorney Hakob Charoyan.
Taking into consideration the fact that the defense attorney merely enumerated in his claims the judicial decisions made by V.Lachinyan, senior investigator of the Serious Crimes Investigation Unit of the Yerevan City Department of the General Department of Criminal Investigation, the Special Investigatory Service has come to the conclusion that the submitted claims evidently lack any ground; the defense attorney has inferred in the investigator’s activities the crimes defined by Articles 336 and 351 of the RA Criminal Code but hasn’t provided any evidence to support the fact of a crime committed or to be committed. Therefore, in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code of RA, the submitted claims have not been accepted as report on crime and no judicial decisions have been made. The defense attorney has been informed about it in written form. Likewise, he has been informed that it is outside the limit of the Special Investigatory Service’s authorities to check the legality and substantiation of decisions made by other investigation bodies or to review them, as it is a prosecutorial control function.
However, given that the article entitled Corruption in the Prosecutor’s Office of Yerevan published in Hraparak Daily provides new arguments not mentioned in H. Charoyan’s claims, the defense attorney Charoyan has been invited to the Special Investigatory Service to provide clarification on the arguments in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia.