Yerevan Bus CJSC has issued a statement regarding an incident involving a 13-year-old child on public transport that has attracted widespread attention. Company officials spoke this morning with the inspector who was conducting an inspection at the time of the incident and the child's parent. During a discussion that lasted around two hours, they heard both sides' explanations, but found that their accounts differed significantly on several important details. These included the conversation between the child and the inspector, as well as whether the child got off the bus voluntarily or was made to get off.
The incident took place on a No. 38 route bus manufactured by Higer, which is not equipped with cameras. As a result, the company cannot reconstruct the incident using video footage. The investigation also found that the child's transport card had not been topped up at the time of the incident and was recharged that same day at 9:51 p.m., while the incident occurred at around 3:00 p.m.
Under Part 9 of Article 11.1 of the Law on Road Transport, passengers are required to validate their fare payment method within no more than one minute of boarding and retain it until the end of their journey. However, the fact that the card had not been topped up does not necessarily mean that no fare was paid. Payment could also have been made through another permitted method, including by the child's parent.
The company stressed that inspectors are not authorized to make passengers, particularly minors, get off a bus. At the same time, the available information is not yet sufficient to confirm or refute either side's claims. The investigation is ongoing, and if it establishes that the inspector violated work duties or engaged in unlawful conduct, disciplinary measures will be taken against him. At present, however, there is insufficient objective evidence to establish such a violation. The company has apologized to the child's parent for the situation and the distress caused to the family.
This incident illustrates how difficult it can be to establish the full picture of an event on public transport when the parties' accounts differ and there is no video footage from the bus. In such circumstances, public reaction can develop much faster than the information provided can be verified. But this is precisely where it is important to distinguish between suspicion and established fact.
Another important issue is the limits of an inspector's authority. The company itself acknowledges that an inspector has no right to make a passenger, especially a child, get off a bus. Therefore, the ongoing investigation must establish not only the circumstances surrounding the fare payment but also what the employee actually did. The lack of video footage makes this assessment more difficult, making it all the more important for the company to verify both accounts as thoroughly as possible. Until then, any definitive conclusion about either party's responsibility would be premature.
