On 4 May, the trial in the case of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan and Lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was 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, during today’s court session, the defense side presented 2 motions regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained during the operative investigative measures (OIM).
Defendant Erik Aleksanyan was the first to present his petition. According to him, there was an “aggressive” interference against Arusyak Aleksanyan’s right to private life, within the framework of the criminal case.
“In this case, evidential secret actions against Arusyak Aleksanyan were presented from the beginning, that is, a motion to conduct an external and internal inspection based on the operative report. There was mentioned in it that information that Arusyak Aleksanyan received particularly large bribes from various persons had been received. The court approves the petition based on the operative information received from an unverified, unknown source, which is included in the report. After that, the operative body does not confirm the data in its report as a result of the secret operation and submits a new petition to get permission to continue the mentioned operations for another 2 months, on the same basis,” Erik Aleksanyan said, adding that the court granted the petition for the second time without assessing the credibility of the data contained in it.
As a result of secret operations, the data regarding the bribery was not confirmed, but the judge was charged with abusing or exceeding official powers and using the influence as a result of those powers. Erik Aleksanyan also said that he did not see a problem if the court decided to postpone the resolution of the petition until the examination of the evidence. He also mentioned that the court, under the chairmanship of Vahe Dolmazyan, should assess the reliability of the received operative data and its sufficiency for the implementation of secret operations.
“The operative body tried to maneuver. For the first time, when these measures were implemented and the information was not confirmed, other conversations were heard during the wiretapping. When submitting petitions for the 2nd time, the circumstance of bribery was mentioned again, because bribery is a serious crime and only in case of serious crimes, permission for covert actions is granted or its term is extended. If they have had mentioned in the new report that the bribe was not confirmed, but there were other suspicious rumors, then the court would not have granted the extension. The operative body has maneuvered here, it presents abstract, unconfirmed information about the bribery and asks for permission again,” Erik Aleksanyan said, adding that the operative body, in this case, the National Security Service, did not provide any evidence on the basis of the reports.
Arusyak Aleksanyan joined the petition presented by Eric Aleksanyan and mentioned that during the investigation of their appeal to the Court of Appeals regarding the report, the representative of the National Security Service said that no materials other than the report were presented to the court, and the report was approved by 20 other senior staff in addition to the author. “For this reason, I may have to mediate to interrogate Ashot Ghambaryan, who drew up the report, and his superior, Vigen Petrosyan, as witnesses.”
According to the defendant, the National Security Service has been pursuing her for almost a year. “In the end, has at least half of the episode of bribery been presented or not?” No, it has not.””
Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney Andranik Manukyan announced in court that he also joins the petition.
“My client’s right to privacy has been grossly violated. In fact, the operative body artificially exaggerated the “operational information” it had obtained: it turned it into information of receiving a bribe of 2-5 million drams, so that it would be possible to submit a petition to the court,” Manukyan noted and added that the judge who accepted the petitions discredited the judiciary.
Arusyak Aleksanyan then turned to the court, noting that Vahe Dolmazyan knows her personally, the rumors about bribery are perceived as a personal insult for her. “Let the representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office sew whatever article they want on me, but never a bribe. It is against my principles, it is against the life I lived, it is against my merit, and it is against my education.”
According to her, the report submitted by the National Security Service is a fake document of an abstract style, in which not even a single criminal case is mentioned. According to the defendant, she still does not know in which cases she was suspected and a petition to perform secret actions was submitted.
Then public prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan presented his position on the petition. According to him, by resolving the petition, the court will assess not the circumstances of obtaining the evidence and their admissibility, but the legality and justification of the decision adopted by the court. The prosecutor reminded that the defense’s appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the report was rejected, and the Court of Cassation did not even take the case in proceedings.
In addition, Armen Gevorgyan noted that the allegations regarding the exaggeration of the alleged bribe amount are groundless, because according to the Criminal Code, accepting a bribe by a judge is considered a particularly serious crime, regardless of the amount.
“I can’t help but reflect on attributing the specific characteristics of a tailor to the Prosecutor’s Office. I regret to note that such thoughts are expressed by a person occupying the position of a judge, although the powers are suspended. The Prosecutor’s Office, as always, defends the accusation of persons and relies exclusively on a sufficient combination of evidence. I wonder if Mrs. Arusyak Aleksanyan had the same opinion, the same belief when she held the position of a judge,” said the public prosecutor, calling for the defense to express itself within the limits of correctness.
Vahe Dolmazyan decided to leave the petition submitted by Erik Aleksanyan without examination.
Erik Aleksanyan’s defense attorney Mikael Shkhimyan also presented the petition regarding operational intelligence measures. He equated the initiation of the OIMs with the initiation of a criminal prosecution, which was carried out without the permission of the Supreme Judicial Council. In Mikael Shkhimyan’s opinion, OIMs are equivalent to criminal prosecution. “When I say criminal prosecution, I understand the circumstance when the actual restriction of a person’s rights begins. In this case, operational measures were initiated against the person, as a result of which, restriction of fundamental rights of the latter occurred.”
Arusyak Aleksanyan joined Mikayel Shkhimyan’s petition, stating that since 12 July, 2022, the State suspected her of demanding and receiving a bribe of 2-5 million drams. The court rejected this motion.
The session was postponed; the next hearings were scheduled for 8 May.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
