40 students of Armenian-Russian University participated to the master-class of criminal law, organized by «AM» Law Firm, which was conducted by Levon Sahakyan, Partner of «AM», renowned advocate of criminal law  and Narine Sargsyan, Chief Legal Adviser.

Among many theoretical and practical questions, relating to criminal law and law of criminal procedure, the students discussed with the experienced specialists the issue that  the investigators often intentionally involve a person as a witness, warn about criminal liability provided for refusal to give testimony, interrogate, and  only then impose a new  accusation. Regarding this issue advocate Levon Sahakyan clarified that depending on the circumstances of the case one of two options of tactics may be chosen- 1) having a status of a witness to refuse to give a testimony, referring to the constitutional norm, as well as a number of  precedent decisions, 2)to give testimony anyway, and to decide in future whether to insist that testimony or to dispute the admissibility of the given protocol.

Regarding the issue of delays of terms of investigation of criminal case, one of the students offered to set a precise term of investigation of case. Advocate Mr. Sahakyan explained  to the students that it is very dangerous to set a precise term of investigation of a court case and oblige judges to finalize the case during that term, as effective and fair investigation of cases may be endangered. In other words, there may be cases, for fair investigation of which may be necessary longer terms, than will be provided by law. As for classifying cases and, accordingly, setting a separate term  for each one will be very difficult for the legislator. Hence, accepting that the expression ’’reasonable term’’ existing now in the legislation may be interpreted differently by different judges, nevertheless, there is still no better solution.

The students were also interested whether the lawyer should protect his client, realizing he was a criminal. Regarding the above-mentioned question, the experiences advocates answered that for them primary goal should be to protect the interests of their client, which will widely  promote justice, as it will make state bodies work more efficient and conscientious in each case. Besides, the mission of assurance of justice belongs to the courts, not to the advocate.

At  the end of the meeting possibilities and procedures of working or passing a practice in «AM» Law Firm in future were presented to the future lawyers.