The Prosecutor General`s Office to RA Parliament  Vice Speaker: we  face  extremely different, incompatible situations

ArmInfo.The comments of the Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly on the cases investigated in Armenia are a manifestation of political rhetoric. This is stated in  the answer of the Prosecutor General's Office of Armenia to the request of the Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly Eduard Sharmazanoto the  Prosecutor General Artak Davtyan.

According to the RA Prosecutor General's Office, on the eve of E.  Sharmazanov, he expressed bewilderment at the intention of the  Prosecutor General's Office to appeal against the decision of the  Armenian Appeals Court to release Robert Kocharyan,at the same time   "forgetting" about "releasing some members of the terrorist group" by  the court, who, during the capture of the regiment of the patrol and  guard service in 2016, killed three policemen. At the same time, the  vice speaker of the National Assembly reminds that Davtyan himself  from the rostrum of the parliament made statements about the strict  punishment of the persons who carried out these murders.

"All the statements of the Prosecutor General from the rostrum of the  National Assembly, including the mentioned group, were public. They  can be read on the Internet, they are available to everyone. The  conviction that the persons who killed policemen during the capture  of the PPS regiment must suffer a severe punishment, which is also  the duty of the prosecutor's office, remains unshakable and  unchanged. However, this does not and can not have any direct  relationship with the process of replacing the arrest of defendants  in the case of the seizure of the PPS by a measure of restraint not  related to the deprivation of liberty, especially with the criminal  prosecution against Robert Kocharyan, by choosing preventive measures  in his respect for the following reasons:

Firstly: Mr. Sharmazanov deliberately or erroneously ignores the fact  that the measure of restraint, chosen against the persons accused of  killing policemen, has not changed, and they continue to remain under  arrest.

Secondly: the application of a preventive measure against the accused  is not a penalty. It is used in the process of reviewing the case to  ensure proper conduct, to guarantee the normal course of an objective  investigation, to neutralize reasonable factors.

Therefore, the replacement of arrest by a preventive measure that is  not related to deprivation of liberty can not be commented on under  any circumstances as a manifestation of the termination of criminal  prosecution, release from criminal liability or its justification,  regardless of whether it is about Robert Kocharyan, whose status  accused, members of the group accused of seizing the regiment of the  PPS or another person. This can be seen by studying the relevant  legal norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia.

Thirdly: Prosecutors defending the offense  in the above-mentioned  criminal case did not object to the petitions to replace the  preventive measure in the form of arrest with alternative preventive  measures solely because, based on new evidence, at this stage of the  investigation they were convinced that , that the grounds for the  continuation of the application of the preventive measure in the form  of arrest have disappeared with respect to concrete accused, the  grounds for obstructing the investigation have substantially  decreased.

In addition, it should be noted that we are dealing with extremely  different, incompatible situations. Decisions to change preventive  measures against persons in the case of the capture of the PPS  regiment were taken during the trial, after serving a 2-year term in  prison, when the possibilities for obstructing the investigation  became less. But the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the  change of the preventive measure against Robert Kocharyan was made at  the most active stage of the preliminary investigation, when  extensive investigative and other procedural, operational and  reconnaissance activities were carried out. And in this case, the  possibility of impeding the investigation is quite large, "the  Prosecutor General's Office mentioned in its  response.