On June 22 of 2018, the Special Investigation Service made a decision to cease the criminal persecution instituted by the characteristics of Paragraph 2 of Article 225 (absence of crime in his actions) of the RA Criminal Code against Vahagn Ghumashyan, supporter of the Founding Parliament, back on July 30 of 2016.
Vahagn Ghumashyan was accused of participating in the mass disorders on July 29 of 2016 in Sari Tagh, especially on the grounds of throwing stones on the policemen implementing their official duties. On July 30 of 2016, Vahagn Ghumashyan was detained and on August 3 of 2016 was arrested on the grounds of the witnesses given by the RA Police workers, according to which the latter recognized Vahagn Ghumashyan, who had thrown stones on the police workers. It is notable, that the decision made on the application of detention as a preventive measure against Vahagn Ghumashyan was copied from another decision made in regard to another person, where the name and the surname of another person was mentioned. However, according to the court, the data of another person mentioned in the decision have not changed the essence and the content of the decision.
Vahagn Ghumashyan was imprisoned until September 14 of 2016, for 47 days
The protection of Vahagn Ghumashyan’s right was undertaken by Haykuhi Harutyunyan, the President of the “Protection of Rights without Borders” NGO, advocate, legal expert of the same Organization Araks Melkonyan.
It should be mentioned, that an appeal on the assessment of the application of detention as a preventive measure has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, which was register on July 12 of 2018.
According to the defenders, the accusation submitted against Vahagn Ghumashyan was unreasoned and there was no evidence in the case to ground the presence of Vahagn Ghumashyan in the place of the case and any fact for committing a crime. During the preliminarily investigation, Vahagn Ghumashyan stated, that on July 29 of 2016 he was not in Sari Tagh, which was grounded by the evidence of the witnesses.
Nevertheless, it took approximately 2 years from the body conducting the proceeding to confirm the mentioned circumstance.