After the initiation of a criminal case against the candidate for deputy of the "Hayastan" bloc, the director of the "Izmirlyan" medical center - A. Charchyan and rendering a decision regarding the election of detention as a measure of restraint against him, all this period, both his advocates and the bloc persistently tried to force the society into a false agenda for the implementation of political persecution against A. Charchyan. For this purpose, both the one-sided public comments of his advocates and political statements that have nothing to do with legality are used.

Based on this, the Prosecutor's Office considers it necessary to respond to some groundless accusations aimed at misleading the public during this period.

1.  First, the widespread, various statements of the media about the initiation of a criminal case on the basis of an anonymous report do not correspond to reality. In the RA SIS a criminal case was initiated in accordance with Art. 176 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of sufficient grounds acquired during the preparation of the materials. The criminal case was initiated on the basis of the detection by the body conducting the proceedings of data testifying to the crime in the course of exercising the powers. Moreover, on the specified day, with the instruction to prepare the materials, the said publication was sent to the body conducting the proceedings, which is available in the materials of the criminal case.

2.  Advocates tried to form a public opinion that the existing record was a fake. On 19.06.2021 A. Charchyan's advocate wrote on his Facebook page and noted during a briefing for journalists that his client does not accept the content of the recording, obviously distorting the essence of the prosecutor's clarification. Meanwhile, during the court hearing regarding the election of a measure of restraint, advactes published a video containing the contents of the recording and accepted that A. Charchyan was the speaker.

3.  Nevertheless, taking into account that the said video was published by the media after the initiation of a criminal case, it was instructed to establish the credibility of the video.

4.  We consider it necessary to clarify that the powers of the Prosecutor's Office in relation to preliminary detention are not of a discretionary nature. They are regulated by the legal norms of the RA Criminal Procedure Code regarding the grounds and conditions for choosing measures of restraint. Being guided by the norms, the prosecutor supervising the legality of the preliminary investigation of the criminal case, having considered the advocate's petition to cancel the measure of restraint against A. Charchyan, refused the petition, and the decision on the refusal was sent to advocates.

5.  Judgments about the cancellation by the prosecutor detention in relation to the accused due to illness have no legal and logical basis. First A. Charchyan is currently in the civil hospital that he has chosen under the control of doctors.

 

Second, for the resolution of the issue of release from pre-trial detention due to illness by the legislation of the RA, there is a clear procedure:

 

Under Point 3.2 of Art. 151 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecutor has the right to change or cancel detention chosen as a measure of restraint in relation to the accused, in the presence of a serious illness that prevents detention, and such a conclusion must be drawn up by the relevant medical commission. In addition, the list of serious diseases that impede detention is determined by a decree of the Government of the Republic of Armenia.

 

Nevertheless, in case of submitting by the defense party or obtaining in the course of the investigation data that A. Charchyan has the indicated disease, an expertise will be assigned immediately, and on the basis of the expertise conclusion, the criminal procedural law will resolve the issue of canceling detention chosen as a measure of restraint against the latter.

 

In the end, we consider it necessary to note that the professional reputation of A. Charchyan has not been and will not be called into question by any action of the Prosecutor's Office. However, the interest of justice cannot obey the dignity of any person or the interest of a group.