JUDGE ANAHIT TUMANYAN DISMISSED THE CASE AGAINST DENO GOLD MINING COMPANY

The Court of General Jurisdiction of Syunik Marz dismissed the case against Deno Gold Mining Company. Judge Anahit Tumanyan substantiated the dismissal of the case by the fact that the case materials don’t include evidence proving threats to human life and health. In the interview with EcoLur, Artur Ghazaryan who is the Legal Consultant of “For Ensuring Ecological Security and Developing Democracy” NGO expressed his opinion about this decision to be legally incorrect. “A week before the dismissal the court suspended the company’s activity in Shahumyan Region on the basis of threat to people’s life and health and evidence submitted in the case,” he said.

Reminder: “For Ensuring Ecological Security and Developing Democracy” NGO protects the rights of the owners in Kapan Town, Shahumyan Region.

The problem is that Shahumyan Community is located on the surface of Shahumyan gold-polymetallic deposit which is currently being developed by Deno Gold Mining Company. In the course of years the deposit has been developed with gross violations of development rules. The upper layer of soil under galleries is practically dug through, and so craters have formed (see photos). “Here you may find yourself buried alive under a 30-meter-deep layer of the ground. Be careful! If you fall, no one will dig you out,” said Vladik Martirosyan, the President of “Khoustoup” NGO who accompanied EcoLur Group during the visit to Shahumyan Region.

The company promised to give compensations to the inhabitants for resettlement, but only several owners received compensations. At present the company has stopped giving compensations explaining this by decrease in world prices for nonferrous materials. As it is known, the prices have gone up again, but the company still refuses to give compensations. The inhabitant of Shahumyan, 77-year-old Armik Stepanyan said: “There are only two of us, me and my husband. Our sons have died, and I don’t know what to do. We take care of the garden; it feeds both us and our grandchildren. I haven’t received any compensation, they only promise, no real actions.”

After the court dismissed the case, 6 owners refused to protect their rights in court. A new action was brought to the court on behalf of 28 owners. As it became known, the court dismissed the new case either bringing the same substantiations.