Паст инфо

E. Melkonyan who works for ''Queen'' taxi service on June 20 2010 after transporting a passenger to Voskevaz village of Aragatsotn region on his way back to Yerevan on Yerevan-Gyumri road finds a 12 mm ''IJ-43E'' type of hunting gun with a shortened muzzle. He brings the gun to Yerevan and hides in his Renault taxi cab. But on 27 July 2010 at 5.30 p.m. the police officers detect the gun and seizure it.

The weapon case becomes a subject of a trial. The Court of First Instance of Shengavit Community of Yerevan however justifies E. Melkonyan basing its decision as follows ''after shortening a muzzle of sleek-muzzeled guns it remains a weapon, but it does not stop being sleek-muzzeled, and the literal interpretation of the law says that acquisition, retention, sale or transfer of sleek-muzzeled gun is not criminally punishable’’.

This decision was acceptable for the Court of Cassation and the decision of the Court of First Instance remained unchanged there, because according to the Court of Cassation “in E. Melkonyans act there was no crime”.

Accuser J. Sahakyan does not agree with the decision of first two instances. He complains to the Court of Cassation and substantiates it with a fact that “the decision of the Court of Cassation on the issue of the complaint might play an essential role in the similar applications of the law''.  In his opinion both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Cassation made a judicial mistake that '' might cause serious consequences in similar cases, because the person committed a crime might avoid criminal responsibility.

The Court of Cassation examined the issue comprehensively and according to internationally accepted legal documents that are ratified by Armenia. For example, according to the Article 7 of European Convention on the Protection of Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms ''nobody must be found guilty in any act or omission which according to international and domestic law was not constituted as a crime''.

Commenting Article 235 of the RA Criminal Code the Court of Cassation finds that according to this article assigns ''criminal responsibility for purchasing, selling, possessing and transporting illegal weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices. The only exception is regarding purchase, sale, possession, transportation or bearing sleek-muzzeled guns or bullets''.

Based on this and a number of other justifications and led by Article 92 of the RA Constitution,  Articles 403-406, 419, 422-424 of the RA Code of Criminal Procedure the Court of Cassation made a decision to refuse the cassation complaint.

Samvel Martirosyan