On 7 April, the trial in the case of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan and lawyer Erik Aleksanyan continued in the Anti-Corruption Court.

On 17 October, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council approved the petitions of the General Prosecutor’s Office regarding the initiation of criminal prosecution against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and provided consent to deprivation of liberty. Within the framework of the same case, the lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was also charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code, that is, he assisted an official in abusing office or official powers or the influence caused by them or exceeding the powers. In the framework of this case, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant Tamara Petrosyan was also charged.

The defendants do not accept the charges against them.

According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of today’s court session, the presiding judge Vahe Dolmazyan announced that the issue of extending the period of the measure of restraint against Arusyak Aleksanyan should be discussed, which caused the dissatisfaction of the defendant’s attorneys. It should be noted that the judge’s detention period expires on 18 April.

“There are still 11 days. There is a reasonable doubt that it is necessary to extend the detention period of Arusyak Aleksanyan as soon as possible. I record that according to the Criminal Procedure Code you do not have such authority to delay the execution of the judicial action provided for by the law at the specific stage of the trial and to address the extension of the detention instead,” Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney Andranik Manukyan said, noting that there is no obstacle to addressing the issue later.

Arusyak Aleksanyan also stated in the court that she does not understand what caused Vahe Dolmazyan’s haste. “Maybe you want to give me a gift related to April 7, your honor?” Maybe you chose a milder measure of restraint, that’s why you want to discuss this issue 11 days earlier. However, I am also curious as to what specific norm you are guided by to show such haste. After all, what is the reason?’

Defendant Erik Aleksanyan stated that there is no more important issue than the issue of the measure of restraint at the moment, but another session has been scheduled for 14 April, and it is possible to schedule a session before that to discuss the issue. “It was unexpected that we have to discuss the issue of the measure of restraint at this court session. However, I agree with Mr. Manukyan’s position.”

The court explained that before the expiration of the term, the court is obliged to discuss the issue of detention or not. This issue should be discussed at least 5 days before.

“The investigator conducting the proceedings can submit a motion to extend the detention period 10 days before, 11 days before, 7 days before. There is no time limit. The limitation refers to the minimum, beyond which the initiation of proceedings may be rejected in case of submission of petition. The body conducting the proceedings decides when this issue should be discussed,” the judge noted. There is one session scheduled before the detention period expires, on April 14, that is, less than 5 days remain. A court session was scheduled for April 12, but that date was not acceptable for all parties to the trial.

Vahe Dolmazyan mentioned that the court, chaired by him, decided to discuss the issue today. “Everyone clearly knows what norms the procedural code provides and what actions can be taken. …Arguing that the determination of the volume of evidence should be the subject of discussion today, therefore the question of the period of detention of the accused cannot be the subject of discussion, and does not follow from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Andranik Manukyan countered, stating that the judge subjected the Criminal Procedure Code to an arbitrary interpretation. “You commented to keep Arusyak Aleksanyan in custody for another 3 months. If it has to be like that, tell us not to come, Mr. Dolmazyan. You sit with the prosecutor, sentence Arusyak Aleksanyan to death, and we will come and sign this verdict (sentence-ed.). What does it mean to ignore the Criminal Procedure Code in this way, what for?

The judge tried to interrupt the lawyer. He said that he would give him the opportunity to make a statement later. But Andranik Manukyan continued.

– I am now putting everything I have on the table to ensure that you will extend the detention period by 3 months.

– Mr. Manukyan, you are not in the casino. When you go to the casino, you will put everything on the table.

– You go to casino, I never go to a casino. I go to places with higher ideological values.

– My congratulations on that.

– Your congratulations are not accepted.

Hovsep Sargsyan, the other defender of Arusiak Aleksanyan, also mocked and offered to extend the detention period until 18 August. “Please consider the proposal as well.”

Then the defenders of the detained judge asked for a 5-minute break to discuss their tactics.

After the break, the 3rd representative of the detained judge, Yerem Sargsyan, requested that the preliminary court session continue from where they stopped last time and that the defenders present their evidence, if possible, that evidence be examined, after which the issue of extending the detention period be discussed.

“It is not excluded that, as a result of the work and actions, the court will find that the grounds for detention have disappeared, decreased, although in our opinion, they were not there from the very beginning. I am making a motion and asking to continue the pre-determined order,” Yerem Sargsyan said.

Judge Vahe Dolmazyan reminded: last time the issue of detention was discussed for 3 days. And in this case, there is one court session scheduled, on 14 April. Then the judge asked Yerem Sargsyan a rhetorical question: if the issues are discussed in the order he proposed, will it be the turn to discuss the extension of the detention period? “Taking into account the workload of both the trial participants and the court.”

The judge insisted that during today’s court session, the issue related to the extension of the Criminal Procedure Code against Arusyak Aleksanyan should be discussed.

Andranik Manukyan stated that he objects to the actions of the presiding judge. He once again repeated the statement he made in the previous session. According to him, the judge made a mistake by applying detention as a measure of restraint to Arusyak Aleksanyan.

“I, highly appreciating my mission in connection with taking over the defense of Arusyak Aleksanyan, respecting the red diploma given to me by the state years ago, respecting the regulations defined by the Criminal Procedure Code, do not consider it appropriate to continue my participation in this court session, which is held contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. That is why, even without the chairman’s permission, I am leaving the courtroom.”

Lawyers Hovsep Sargsyan and Yerem Sargsyan tried to do the same. The court asked them what was their reasoning for leaving the courtroom. Yerem Sargsyan announced that he has to submit a challenge petition to the judge and asked for time. Vahe Dolmazyan proposed to announce a 1-hour break so that the defender could present his petition. However, the defenders of Erik Aleksanyan and Tamara Petrosyan mentioned that they cannot wait that long, they have a lot of work.

Arusyak Aleksanyan’s lawyers remained in the session hall. Then the accuser made a statement. According to Armen Gevorgyan, the defense side is trying to put the responsibility of scheduling the sessions with a possible delay on the side of the accusation.

Referring to his workload on 12 April, which he reported at the previous court session, the prosecutor stated that he may postpone the court session scheduled for another case. “My colleagues unanimously mentioned that they had petitions, that is, they all planned to work for a long time. Now a rhetorical question arises, ‘if they had planned to work long, then why did everyone remember that they had other workloads?’ This is a circumstance that did not escape the eyes of the Criminal Court of Appeals when it was discussing the appeal of the defense to choose detention as a measure of restraints, regarding the legality of the court’s decision.

The accuser also claimed that the defense side is trying to delay the trial with the planned actions carried out in this session.

Hovsep Sargsyan did not agree with the accuser, they did not intend to delay the judicial investigation. According to the lawyer, the defense comes to the courtroom to work. “We have to call on the court every time so that it is governed by the procedures established by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, and do not go beyond the scope of its powers. Why do we present everything in a crooked mirror, upside down?”

The court had to postpone the court session because 2 lawyers involved in the case had other jobs.

The next court hearing was scheduled for 12 April.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan