Former Judge Pargev Ohanyan issued a statement referring to the appeal against the refusal to change Robert Kocharyan’s measure of restraint on bail.

“Yesterday, if I understood correctly, the defenders of the other defendants also participated in the appeal against the petition to change R. Kocharyan’s measure of restraint and to apply bail. Even their defenders expressed positions despite the fact that their defendants were not present … and it is natural because the question did not concern them.

To put it mildly, I am skeptical. Moreover, according to Article 65, paragraph 2, part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, the accused have a defense attorney from the moment of indictment, to refuse from the defense attorney and to defend himself/herself; and under paragraph 8, to participate in the investigatory and other procedure actions or refuse from participation, upon his/her motion and upon the permission of the body of inquiry, the investigator or the prosecutor, personally or through the defense attorney;.

Leaving aside the shortcomings of the norms, for example, that in paragraph 3 there should be “or” after “defender” rather than comma, and that in paragraph 8 there should also be “court” and, more precisely, someone’s permission. The need should not be obvious that, if the accused / defendant / has a defense, in addition to testifying / if he/she wishes/ has to exercise all his/her rights through a lawyer… Roughly speaking, he/she should not be allowed to speak, except for in cases if he/she does not agree with the Defender’s actions, declares his refusal, and of course, in the “last word”, as in the trials in civilized countries.

We won’t go that far, the shortcomings of the Criminal Procedure Code and the current vicious judicial /and pre-trial / criminal law practice, so justice is simply not possible. The victims are not 110 (thank God), and the accused are not 40. Can you imagine everybody expressing position on every known motion, challenge, everybody’s speech, and so on? I remembered the famous anecdote: “It is good that cows do not fly.” It is absurd: the prosecution /i.e. also the victims/ in every criminal case, prosecution shall be represented at the trial by a prosecutor /Article 23/. During the Nuremberg trial, there were four prosecutors, one from each country, and each with the US, UK, France, and the USSR, each with one substitute.

Can you imagine if the successors and representatives of the victims also participated…? Senseless motions, groundless objections, pointless deliberations, meaningless consultation rooms, groundless delays… The Code of Criminal Procedure, the case law on it, needs to be changed urgently…,” the statement said.