“Your speech will be long, won’t it?” Judge Arshak Vardanyan asked Misak Martirosyan, the former head pof Judiciary Department of the RA opening the court case in the Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork Marash Administrative Districts of Yerevan. “Yes, rather long,” Misak Martirosyan answered and showed the defense speech consisting of several dozen pages.
Prior to hearing the main defendant and his advocate, the court listened to the defense speech of Arman Palikyan’s advocate Hrant Ananyan.
The advocate said that in the light of the presumption of innocence there were still some non-clarified doubts. “The investigation has not proved the facts of my defendant’s involvement as a member in an organized group. Performing the instruction he was not aware of the embezzlement process,” said the advocate.
He cited excerpts from the defendant’s pre-trial testimony, where Palikyan recognized himself guilty only partially. The advocate added that there were mitigating circumstances. According to him, the defendant is young, characterized as positive, have two young children under his care, has not ever been convicted, pleaded guilty in part, and showed sincere repentance, assisted the investigation to identify the case, during the criminal trial did not show any illegal behavior.
The lawyer added that the damage was fully restored. He asked to justify Arman Palikyan in the offered charge against him, or in case he is recognized guilty to apply mild punishment and conditionally not apply the punishment, but apply the 2013 amnesty act.
The defendant said he joined the advocate’s speech, and shall not deliver a speech.
Misak Martirosyan’s advocate Vardan Zurnachyan said that if the prosecutor would be objective he should waive the accusation. According to the advocate, the defendant in the case Armen Martirosyan had provided “falce evidences against Misak Martirosyan under the pressure and dictation of the preliminary investigation body. There are no evidences to prove the guilt attributed to Misak Martirosyan. There was an objective to organize a show from the very beginning. The offence charged against my client had not been performed. In addition the composition of this 115 million AMD is unknown; there is no specification in the charge, how much money exactly had stolen Martirosyan. In other words, everyone “was measured with the same criteria,” said the advocate.
According to his speech it is unreasonable to punish Misak Martirosyanfor the fact that he was the head of the entity and had signed under the documents. Mr. Zurnachyan insisted that there was no evidence that proving that his client was involved in that criminal group. “In such case we can tell to any person, any official, and beginning from the Chief Treasurer to the Minister of Finances, that just here robbery took place and you have approved it, you are guilty,” concluded the advocate.