On 15 June, 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, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney Andranik Manukyan and defendant Erik Aleksanyan made opening remarks today.

However, at the beginning of the session, Andranik Manukyan said that he had an important announcement to make. He said that the Constitutional Court accepted for consideration the issue of compliance with the Constitution of Article 120, Part 1, Clause 5, Article 121, Part 1, and Article 316, Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on Arusyak Aleksanyan’s application to decide the case.

“I want to appease all the ill-wishers, and to announce to the well-wishers that the Supreme Court has accepted the individual application submitted regarding Arusyak Aleksanyan for examination, according to the procedural decision made yesterday. I would like to note, however, that the application submitted regarding part 1 of Article 316, among other things, also refers to the lack of a procedural order to apply arrest as a preventive measure in court proceedings,” Andranik Manukyan noted, reminding the chairman that during one of the previous court sessions, the court rejected the petition to appeal to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

He said that the Constitutional Court will start the trial on 28 July. “We will count the chicks before they hatch in summer and not in autumn. After 28 July, 2023.”

Presiding judge Vahe Dolmazyan wished success to Andranik Manukyan.

After Manukyan’s statement, the defendant Erik Aleksanyan was supposed to make an opening statement in court, but the latter stated that he wanted to address the question of the certainty of the accusation first. In order to make the opening speech more effective, he asked to answer 2 questions: “Whether or not Arusyak Aleksanyan’s apparently unjust judicial act was considered as a consequence of the alleged crime”.

Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan stated that he does not want to enter into such a discourse and this is due to the fact that the person raising the question has high professional qualities. “Mr. Aleksanyan is more than familiar with the position of the accusation. In this judicial process, he is definitely aware of what the wording of the accusation means.”

Responding to the prosecutor’s position, Erik Aleksanyan stated in court that he is an accused, but he does not have the opportunity to get an explanation about the accusation. “I would like to draw attention to the fact that in this case, making an “obviously unfair judicial act” was considered as a means of committing a crime. At the same time, the means of committing the crime cannot be a consequence of the crime.”

Then, moving on to his opening speech, he announced that the accusation against him was not legitimate and certain. “I do not accept the accusation.”

He told the court that he will present a document later that will “be the collapse” of this case. “We are talking about a document that I received from the Prosecutor General’s Office. I will not say what the document is about; I will not reveal its content. I don’t want to reveal my weapons at this moment, so that the side of the accusation does not have a chance to fight against these weapons in any way. At this stage, the way to fight is to change the accusation.”

The court responded to this statement of the defendant: Judge Vahe Dolmazyan noted: “As long as that document is not there, this case is not subject to collapse at the moment.”

After Erik Aleksanyan, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney delivered an opening speech. Andranik Manukyan stated that his client did not commit the act he was accused of. Referring to the question whether Arusyak Aleksanyan had a certain interest in examining the motion based on the criminal case or not, the lawyer answered: “Yes, she had. That is what predetermined the need for her to recuse in the given court proceedings.”

He mentioned that the judge wanted the petition to be signed to her. Andranik Manukyan believes that Arusyak Aleksanyan should have been subject to disciplinary action, not to appear on the defendant’s chair, in order not to recuse and to examine the said petition. At the same time, the lawyer emphasized that a “very truthful and objective judicial act” could be made by a judge interested in examining the petition. Manukyan also reminded that the court act issued by Arusyak Aleksanyan was not changed by the superior court.

Arusyak Aleksanyan herself stated that they are trying to take revenge on her through the initiated criminal case, but she did not reveal who these persons are. “It is not possible to break me, imprison, condemn, insult as much as you want. I am sure that I will win. I, Mr. Aleksanyan and Mrs. Petrosyan will win anyway. We may not win at this stage, but that blessed day will come and the real culprits will answer, without exception.

Judge Vahe Dolmazyan recorded that the participants of the trial made opening speeches and now the court should proceed to the examination of the evidence. Considering the workload of the court, this court session was postponed.

The parties had to decide on the date of the next court session, but those present could not agree on the date. Arusyak Aleksanyan complained about the court’s decision to schedule a hearing on 28 June. “The 28th of the month is late. Consider that I have been in prison for 8 months and I don’t know how to evaluate the decision to hold a court hearing after 15 days.”

In her opinion, a court session should be scheduled at least once a week.

However, the judge decided to schedule the next hearing on 28 June.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan