Epress.am News from Armenia
The case of Hetq reporter Grisha Balasanyan vs. Football Federation of Armenia President, MP Ruben Hayrapetyan continued today at the Court of General Jurisdiction of Avan and Nor Nork Administrative Districts, reports Lragir.am.
Hayrapetyan’s counsel, Gevorg Gevorgyan, stated that he finds the journalist’s claim groundless and subject to rejection. The attorney noted that there’s a lack of a legal norm to hold his client accountable, since the plaintiff rejected the requirement defined by Article 1087 of the RA Civil Code (libel).
As previously reported, Balasanyan had called the Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) MP on Feb. 2 to find out what “moral losses” he had suffered after a story published by local daily Haykakan Jamanak (“Armenian Times”). According to Hetq, Harapetyan called the journalist “ignoramus,” informed him he has a press service he can call and promptly hung up. When Balasanyan called back a second time (to find out why he had insulted him), Hayrapetyan first asked whether the phone conversation was being recorded and when he was informed that it was, he uttered profanities of a sexual nature and added at the end, “Good that I did it.”
After the incident, Balasyan initially attempted to launch a criminal case by filing a claim with the General Prosecutor’s office; however, his case was refused as the Special Investigative Service found that no crime had been committed per se. He was advised to take the matter up in civil court. Thus, the journalist launched a civil suit, asking the court mandate Hayrapetyan to apologize, to compensate the plaintiff 1 million drams, to pay the state fine to apply to the court, application preparation fees and court representation fees.
The defense attorney noted that the journalist violated his client’s right, by recording the phone conversation from the beginning, from which future actions stemmed.
“During the first call, the journalist didn’t warn [my client] that he’s recording [the call], while during the second call, Ruben Hayrapetyan asked are you recording, to which the journalist boldly responded, yes — that is, yes, I’m violating your rights,” said Gevorgyan. According to him, the journalist’s right should not be defended since he abused that right.
Gevorgyan also noted that Hayrapetyan insulted the journalist after being overwhelmed (admittedly because he found out the second time that the call was being recorded). The attorney believes the journalist’s violated right shouldn’t be reinstated since the latter himself incited his client which was followed by profanities of a sexual nature.
The HHK MP’s counsel assumes that it’s not that the journalist wants to reinstate his right, but that he wants to ruin Ruben Hayrapetyan’s good name.
Balasanyan’s counsel Vahe Grigoryan asked the defense whether the right to one’s dignity is not a priority over Ruben Hayrapetyan’s right to being informed of being recorded.
Hayraptyan’s attorney however, to this and other questions, did not provide specific answers and more often than not, simply refused to answer the question at all.
Balasanyan’s attorney motioned the court for more time in order to present additional facts. The defense objected the motion. Judge Aida Davtyan decided to rule in favor of the plaintiff and postpone the next court session to May 2 at 3 pm.