By the criminal case initiated on the occasion of domestic violence on 09.03.2016 in the Prosecutor's Office of Lori region E.Y. was charged under Point 3 and Point 6 of Part 2 of Art. 119 of the RA Criminal Code for being in a marital relationship since 26.06.2015. until 12.11.2015 with H.S., in relation to the latter he showed a certain cruelty, deliberately causing mental and physical suffering.

 

As a result of the investigation of the criminal case, by the verdict of the Court of General Jurisdiction of the First Instance of the Lori region, the charge brought against E.Y. under Point 3 and Point 6 of Part 2 of Art. 119 of the RA Criminal Code was re-qualified, and the appeal presented by the prosecutor against the verdict was rejected.

 

 The RA Deputy Prosecutor General presented a cassation appeal against the decision of the RA Criminal Court of Appeal, by the decision made as a result of the investigation of which, agreeing with the arguments of the Prosecutor's Office, the RA Court of Cassation expressed legal positions that have precedent significance regarding the material dependence of the victim from the offender, as well as the criminal characteristics of the offender's actions that are essential for domestic violence cases.

 

In particular, the Court of Cassation, based on the approaches of the ECHR to ill-treatment, discussed the severity of physical pain or mental suffering and noted that each case of infliction of severe physical pain or serious mental suffering in itself has features of cruelty; however, a certain cruelty is a high degree of manifestation of ruthlessness, which is combined with the commission of an act dangerous for society, aimed at causing a particularly painful feeling for the victim.

 

In this context, assessing the evidence obtained within the framework of the criminal case, the RA Court of Cassation noted that, while noting that there were no signs of causing serious mental suffering, the lower instance courts did not give a proper legal assessment to the factual data confirmed by the case that he caused H.S. mental suffering, especially through such actions that caused her get frightened, for a long period of time he deprived the woman of the opportunity to eat, not paying attention to the fact that she was very hungry, regularly kept the woman in an atmosphere of fear, constantly monitoring her behavior, threatened the victim that would resort to violence if she turned to law enforcement bodies, and constantly used physical force against her. The combination of such acts, in the opinion of the RA Court of Cassation, in essence can be characterized as inhuman treatment and is subject to qualification as a manifestation of separate cruelty.

 

In addition, the Court of Cassation expressed a legal position that the material dependence of the victim from the offender exists not only when the victim is directly dependent on the offender from a financial point of view, but also when a significant part of the material assistance or income intended for the victim is controlled by the offender, and the latter deprives the victim of the opportunity to use them voluntarily, as it was in this case.

 

Based on the above reasons, the Court of Cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the RA Deputy Prosecutor General, under Part 1 of Art. 119 of the RA Criminal Code canceled the decision of the RA Criminal Court of Appeal and sent the case to the Court of Appeal for a new investigation.