As a reminder, gynecologist Sona Khachatryan, as well as oncologist and head of the Oncology department of the “Erebuni” hospital Yervand Harutyunyan had operated S. Badalyan, with a Caesarian cut. After Badalyan’s Caesarian operation, Harutyunyan had gone on to do a kidney operation without the consent of Badalyan’s relatives, after which 25-year old Susanna had died. A case was brought up in the Erebuni and Nubarashen prosecutor’s offices according to the 2nd point of the 130th article of the criminal code of Armenia. Based on the two forensic medicine investigations, Susanna Badalyan probably died due to some errors committed by the doctors, but this case was quashed by alderman of the prosecutor’s office Arshak Vartanyan. S. Badalyan’s husband Arman Krmoyan had appealed to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia with a protest to reconsider the decision of quashing the case and start another forensic medicine investigation. But he had received a reply from the Chief Prosecution that the investigation had proven that the decision to quash the case was reasonable. A. Krmoyan has currently appealed to the first instance courts of Erebuni and Nubarashen with the demand of reconsidering the decision of quashing the case. The case is being reviewed by Artush Gabrielyan. It’s clear that everyone should be treated equally in the court, despite the position. But it turns out that that just doesn’t work in Armenia. For example, if the plaintiff is a prosecuting investigator and the defendant is an average citizen (A. Krmoyan in this case), then the court differentiates between the two. A. Krmoyan who had come to court was not allowed to enter the court room until the judge didn’t tell him to, while the plaintiff, alderman of the prosecutor’s office Arshak Vartanyan was allowed to enter. The latter came late to court when the trial was supposed to start at 11:00. He came, went up to the judge’s room and didn’t come out for 30-40 minutes. Later on, he came out with the judge and went down to the court hall on the first floor. We don’t want to make any judgments on the new case yet, but it is worth mentioning that the judge of the Central and Nork community first instance court is Zhora Vartanyan, who is Arshak Vartanyan’s father.
During the trial, A. Krmoyan presented the incorrect information given in the preliminary stage of the trial. He especially complained about investigator A. Vartanyan, who had asked for a final forensic medicine investigation and a conclusion. According to Krmoyan, based on the conclusions of the two forensic medicine investigations, S. Badalyan died due to the fact that the doctors hadn’t done their job professionally, in other words, his wife’s death was a result of the doctor’s clumsiness. After such conclusions, oncologist Yervand Harutyunyan had objected to the results of the investigation and asked for another forensic medicine investigation, which was approved by investigator A. Vartanyan. In fact, Y. Harutyunyan has even proposed bringing professional doctors, whom he knows, to be present during the next forensic medicine investigation, after which a conclusion was made. According to that conclusion, Y. Harutyunyan has done his job professionally and there haven’t been any errors. A. Krmoyan stated that Y. Harutyunyan’s colleagues have simply covered up for him, and he has also been an intermediary to the investigator, brought in his specialists during the investigation so that there won’t be any interested parties, but the intermediary has been denied. The elder investigator announced that the investigation was conducted by the finest investigators in Armenia whom, as we already mentioned, Y. Harutyunyan had called. Harutyunyan also mentioned the fact that the doctors of the first investigation were also present during the second one-doctors who have testified that S. Badalyan had died due to her kidney problems. In response to A. Krmoyan’s question directed to Harutyunyan as to whether he could prove that the investigation was conducted by professional doctors and if he had taken into consideration their qualification documents, he replied:
“What qualification? They are the most well-known doctors in Armenia. We all know them.”
Perhaps Y. Harutyunyan’s colleagues are well-known doctors, but in this case they are being suspected of their professionalism. Investigative prosecutor A. Vartanyan said that during the last investigation it had turned out that the doctors had done their best during the operation, they had used all the proper equipment. In addition, specialists from the first committee have been investigated and they have given some exhaustive answers. A. Krmoyan informed the judge that he had asked the investigator to organize a meeting with Y. Harutyunyan face to face, which could have brought up much evidence during the preliminary investigation, but that didn’t take place. According to A. Vartanyan, the appeal was denied because face-to-face conversations happen only when both sides contradict each other. There was no contradiction between Arman and the doctor, which could have helped the case. A. Vartanyan also answered Arman’s question as to why he hadn’t gotten the consent of Susanna’s relatives for the operation. He said that it was unnecessary because it was an emergent and complicated case.
“Did she have to sign anything if her situation was bad?” he asked.
Krmoyan stated the fact that forensic medicine specialists refused to move his wife’s corpse on the day she died and the day after, claiming that they had been afraid of taking on the responsibility of taking the body to the morgue because the conclusion based on the corpse would reveal the crime committed by the hospital doctor. After that, A. Krmoyan has transferred Susanna’s corpse to the Central forensic medicine investigation center and after the investigation, it became clear that Susanna had died due to the errors committed by the non-professional doctors. The investigator then told the judge that he is being asked a question, which has nothing to do with the case and that he doesn’t have to respond to them.
“I think that the decision to quash the case was legal because no criminal case was revealed during the preliminary investigation. I understand that the husband of the deceased can’t cope with the hardships and thinks that this has been a subjective decision.”
Victim of the doctor A. Krmoyan asked the judge to postpone the trial and allow him to come to court with a lawyer next time. The next trial will take place this coming Thursday.