Prosecutor Hakob Melkonyan’s speech referring the case of the former Head of Judiciary department and 12 employees was made in an incandescent atmosphere.
On 18 July, Judge of the Court of First Instance Arshak Vardanyan ruled a verdict on this case. The defendants were accused of organizing a criminal group and theft of 115 million AMD from the State.
In his speech Hakob Melkonyan said: “We deal with entirely organized group. And there is no need for them to know each other, because they have a united goal”.
According to the prosecutor’s speech this group was created and directed by the former head of the Judicial Department Misak Martirosyan. He said that the protective part did not analyze the Law correctly, and didn’t take into account the circumstance, that the offense was executed by dynamic activity and inactivity. These words caused indignation. Particularly Misak asked to make a remark to the prosecutor, while his defender Vardan Zurnachyan said that there was irony in the prosecutor’s speech. The situation solved with Judge Vazgen Rshtuni’s intervention.
After the court session advocate Zurnachyan in the interview with iravaban.net said, “The prosecutor misrepresented the facts. We did not say that the offense cannot be performed this way, but we mentioned that there is no proof in the case; this was the situation that the accuser tried to misrepresent”.
Concluding his speech the prosecutor asked to partially remand the verdict made by the Court of First Instance, recognize Misak Martirosyan guilty under the requirements of , Article 179, Part 3, Points 1,2; Article 311, Part 1, to enhance Gegham Grigoryan’s punishment, recognize unacceptable of not applying conventionally the defendant’s punishment in the form of imprisonment, and conventionally not apply the punishment decided for the defendant in the case Angin Ghukasyan and set a 2 years probation period.
After the Prosecutor’s speech Angin Ghukasyan was was rather excited. She begin her speech with difficulty and did not complete it: “My testimony was considered as reliable, except for the part which was related to preliminary agreement, about which I spoke as a suspect…”-she was not able to continue because of tear. She asked for a permission to speak at the next court session.