News - Դատախազությունը ընդդեմ «հետաքննող լրագրողների» և Սուսաննա Մուրադյանի դատավարությունը ավարտվել է.

In the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan, First Instance, presided by Judge Anushavan Musheghyan, today, December 12, the proceedings in the State Control Service against the NGO Investigative Journalists and Susanna Muradyan concluded. As a reminder, in December last year we wrote that the State Control Service conducted a flawed examination at Armenia Medical Center and concealed the violations. Susanna Muradyan, a former employee of the State Control Service, told Hetq how friendly and kinship ties were used during the center’s investigations, resulting in the documents not being examined in full. The State Control Service has sued the NGO Investigative Journalists and Susanna Muradyan over this article, seeking a retraction and 2 million drams in compensation from each. In this court session, Judge Anushavan Musheghyan first asked the parties whether there is a settlement agreement. The State Control Service representative Syuzanna Amzaryan stated that the claim is entirely maintained. They did not receive a settlement proposal from the respondent, and therefore see no prospects for a settlement. The respondents also noted that they do not fully accept the allegations presented. The court examined the evidence submitted by the parties, after which they stated their positions. The State Control Service representative noted that the aim is to tarnish the plaintiff’s good name, given that the investigation was conducted back in 2022, and Muradyan’s concerns were voiced only after her working relationship had ended. The State Control Service representative said that they also presented the court with the order dismissing Muradyan from her job to show that the goal is not to inform the public about the existing objective facts, but to present them in a different hue and altered form at a time favorable to her, with the aim of defaming the service’s good name. To justify the amount of monetary compensation, the plaintiff presented evidence that the media outlet has a large audience and that the article was published across all possible platforms. Responding to the plaintiff’s claim that she began speaking about the issues after leaving her job, Muradyan stated that this is not accurate because she was dismissed in 2024, while she had been voicing concerns since 2022. Grisha Balasanian, on behalf of the Investigative Journalists NGO, stated that the plaintiff’s claim that the NGO deliberately sought to defame the service’s honor is unfounded. I would like to draw attention to several points: namely, how many letters were sent to the plaintiff; three letters were sent; the topic was revealed to the plaintiff, including concerns raised by Muradyan; another issue is that the plaintiff answered the inquiries poorly. This should not be ignored, and it is not true to say in court that there was dishonest conduct. The inquiries were sent from August 2024; the material was published in December; during these months both the State Control Service and the Investigation Committee sent letters, and the investigator’s decision was examined, meaning several months were needed for the media to study the full scope, which I do not think indicates dishonorable conduct. The Investigative Journalists NGO representative then noted that the fact the investigation was concealed and not carried out in full is clearly recorded in the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings regarding the plaintiff. Therefore, citing that decision and accusing the respondent that the word conceal has not been used is, to say the least, puzzling. Regarding the use of kinship and friendship ties, the Investigative Journalists representative said that the article described these ties, and in court it was not denied that such ties exist. An objective observer might suspect that those ties influenced the conduct of the investigation. Regarding the plaintiff’s assertion that the State Control Service’s good name and dignity were tarnished, the Investigative Journalists representative replied that a state body cannot have honor and dignity; that belongs exclusively to natural persons. As the plaintiff noted, Investigative Journalists, as a media outlet, has a certain position, trust, and credibility, and therefore aims in its work to avoid harming anyone. State bodies forget that they are created to serve the public, whereas the media studies and publishes for the public. The court reviewed all evidence presented by the parties in this session. The court’s decision will be announced on December 19. Read also: - State Control Service changed the basis and subject of the suit against Hetq; the court allocated the burden of proof. - The State Control Service asked the court for time to clarify the grounds of the suit. - The State Control Service representative in court either denies or acknowledges the defects in the Armenia Medical Center investigation.