Complaints
have been addressed to the Human Rights Defender about the that a defendant becomes
a victim of seizure of their property- money and other property (referring to
the entire property of a person)- worth significantly more than the amount of
property damage caused by an act prohibited by the Criminal Code subject to
compensation by the criminal proceedings, possible confiscation of property, or
court costs.
Such
practice is, of course, unacceptable, especially since studies of the complaints
addressed to the Defender often reveal that the amount of property damage caused
by an act prohibited by the Criminal Code subject to compensation by the
criminal proceedings is much smaller. This creates more unlawful repercussions
for the defendant than is actually necessary to secure a civil suit, possible
confiscation of property, or court costs.
The
analysis of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic
of Armenia reveals that this measure of preventive criminal procedural coercion,
is to secure, through restriction of ownership (or other property),
1. the
civil suit,
2. the possible
confiscation of property,
3. and
the court costs.
In
connection with this issue, the Court of Cassation of Armenia has registered
that for the lawful application of this measure of criminal procedural coercion
restricting the constitutional right of a person to manage, possess and use the
property at their own discretion, the body conducting the proceedings is
obliged to ensure a fair balance between the common interest and the protection
of the right of the individual to freely use his property. Moreover, the Court
of Cassation substantiated its position by referring to the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights.
The
Defender emphasizes that in order to ensure a common practice, it is necessary
to strictly follow the positions of the Court of Cassation of Armenia, as enshrined
by the above-mentioned decision and use all possible means to exclude cases of
disproportionate seizure of all the property of the defendant, which continues
to be implemented to this day.
Therefore,
taking into consideration the above-mentioned statements, it can be argued that
it is necessary to exclude the seizure of such property that is not subject to
confiscation within the framework of criminal proceedings, or that seizure
should be imposed only to the extent to which it is subject to confiscation.
Հայերեն
