Today, on 15 February, the court session on the case of the Second President Robert Kocharyan and Armen Gevorgyan, presided over by Judge Anna Danibekyan, continued in the Shengavit residence of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan,.
The defenders of the Second President Robert Kocharyan and former Deputy Prime Minister Armen Gevorgyan demanded to clarify the accusation against their defendants.
“The prosecutor has published only a part of the final part of the indictment. Why do you consider this normal?” Alumyan said at the session that resumed after a short break.
According to Alumyan, the court did not clarify the accusation, but simply read it again. It is not clear for the defense when it is mentioned that “Kocharyan using his official position”. What specific authority of the President is assumed here? Besides, it is not clear whether the President promised to show inaction, whether he should have shown it or whether some actions are attributed to him..
“Such an accusation does not give an opportunity to organize the defense. If everything was detailed in the accusation, it would not last a day; its absurdity would have been revealed at the very moment of its publication,” the defender said.
In his turn, advocate Hovhannes Khudoyan mentioned that if a simple accusation is not presented to the court, then the investigation of the case cannot continue and the proceedings are subject to termination.
“The analysis of the text of the accusation shows that there is no description of the features of corpus delicti. It is not clear what action Mr. Kocharyan had performed,” the defender said, at the same time reminding the linguistic rule of the subject and predicate.
The Second President Robert Kocharyan stated that he also did not understand the accusation, “What did I do? What should I not do? Or what did I not do? What should I have to do? No action is described. We do not want anything fantastic: Explain what powers we are talking about,” the President said.
Lusine Sahakyan, Gevorgyan’s lawyer, noted that the situation in the court was such that prosecutors interpreted the Criminal Procedure Code as they see fit.
