Tigran Khzmalyan's Case Heard

On June 1 the Administrative Court heard the case of Tigran Khzmalyan, filmmaker, member of the first brigade of dismantlers for Mashtots Park, who is accused of defying the orders of policemen, mounting the roof of one of the boutiques and refusing to get down.

The counsel for the prosecution, legal counsel to Police Edgar Petrosyan invited policemen Haik Harutiunyan, Edgar Mkhitaryan and Serob Sargsyan. Despite their poor command of Armenian, which sometimes aroused a smile in Judge Artsrun Mirzoyan, they left without the answer the question of Tigran Khzmalyan whose assignment they carried out in Mashtots Park. They only testified that Tigran Khzmalyan bypassed the fence, unscrewed a bolt, after which two red berets forced him to come down.

The counsel for the prosecution Edgar Petrosyan presented the administrative action against Tigran Khzmalyan. He noted that the mayor’s letter dated 16.02.2012 informed the chief of Yerevan police that Kentron Kanachapatum SNCO has launched construction in Mashtots Park but a group of people hinder their activities.

He presented the letter of the director of Maternity Health Center to the chief of police department of Yerevan complaining of disturbing noise in the park next to the hospital. Besides, on 15.04.2012 Tigran Khzmalyan bypassed the fence and defied the lawful demand of the police officer and committed a dead for which Article 182 of the RA Code on Administrative Breaches provides an administrative penalty.

Tigran Khzmalyan drew attention to the mayor’s statement that construction was authorized, which predetermines the decision of the court because the dispute was entitled accordingly. Tigran Khzmalyan mentioned that they should examine the issue of ownership because in this case there was an encroachment to public property.

He also highlighted the fact that he and his friends protected not his personal but public property which is the property of the republic and was encroached by a group of people and no evidence of lawfulness thereto has been presented. Kentron Kanachapatum SNCO encroached upon the environment which is a violation of Constitutional norms.

“Me, as well as other citizens, guided by our rights and duties, had to resort to self-defense and undertook voluntary action to dismantle the unlawful kiosks,” Tigran Khzmalyan said, adding that the police knew and did not try to prevent. He noted that self-defense is not prohibited by law. Article 17 of the Civil Code defines that the person who, despite violation of this code, acted upon extreme necessity which threatened state security, citizens rights and freedoms, are not liable to penalties.

On June 12, at 17:40, the court will pass the verdict.