On 7 August, 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 October 17, 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 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 official or official powers or the influence caused by them or passing 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, the Public Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan continued the stage of presenting written evidence today.
Notably, According to the indictment, Arusyak Aleksanyan, occupying the position of a Judge of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction, being informed about the presence of the same court’s decision to apply arrest as a preventive measure to her brother Rustam Aleksanyan’s friend and her close client, lawyer Erik Aleksanyan’s defendant Sergey Grigoryan, intended to commit illegal acts in favor of Grigoryan and release him from custody. It is noted that in order to implement the above, the judge reached a preliminary agreement with hrer assistant, Tamara Petrosyan, and an official of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction, whose identity has not yet been determined. According to the accuser, Arusyak Aleksanyan made an obviously illegal court act; she changed the preventive measure chosen against Sergey Grigoryan to arrest with a bail of 2.5 million drams.
In the court, the Prosecutor read the letter of Gagik Poghosyan, the Acting President of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction, which was written on 21 September, 2022. It was sent to the Main Directorate of Economic Security and Countering Corruption of the National Security Service. Gagik Poghosyan informed in a letter, how the process of assigning was carried out. He told the NSS employee that after receiving the petition for bail against Sergey Grigoryan, it was signed to Arusyak Aleksanyan. Further, the court employee informed that the motion to apply detention as a preventive measure against Grigoryan was examined by Judge Armen Shiroyan and the latter tried to find out if there was no mistake.
“As soon as I received the information, I asked to find out whether the petition regarding the application of bail was delivered to judge Aleksanyan or not, and if it was delivered, to request it back for re-assigning. Immediately after that, the petition was signed to Armen Shiroyan. My request was immediately transferred to the relevant employee of the office of Ajapnyak-1 residence, who, according to my information, fulfilled it, but did not send the 2nd assignment to the said residence and did not hand it over to A. Shiroyan. Having the intention to find out the mentioned circumstance, I turned to the office employee responsible for sending the electronic signature sheet, who replied that it may have been missed due to heavy workload,” Gagik Poghosyan noted in the letter.
After reading the written evidence regarding the assignment, the defendants and their defense attorneys made statements. Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney Andranik Manukyan spoke first and stated that the documents cited by the Public Prosecutor have neither legal nor procedural significance.
“The legal acts of the SJC at that time clearly provided for the legal regulations of assigning the case to the judge, as well as requesting the case back from the judge, so to speak, which under no circumstances lead to the fact that, first of all, the President of the Court had to assign this petition to Armen Shiroyan. And if he had not assigned it, he made a mistake. Therefore, Arusyak Aleksanyan was obliged to return the case to Gagik Poghosyan so that it could be re-assigned,” Andranik Manukyan said, asserting that the relevant decision of the Council exhaustively lists the cases when the President of the Court has the right to take the petition assigned to a judge and assign it to another judge.
The lawyer also mentioned that it was not necessary for Judge Armen Shiroyan to examine the petition regarding Sergey Grigoryan. “It was not a petition subject to immediate consideration.”
Then Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan made a statement. She mentioned that during the preliminary hearings, she directed 4 questions to the prosecution, which she has not yet received an answer to.
- Is the motion to remove the arrest or choose an alternative measure of restraint subject to immediate examination (according to Arusyak Aleksanyan, no – ed.).
- Is the petition subject to immediate examination subject to hand signature (according to Arusyak Aleksanyan, no – ed.).
- After signing by hand, was the President of the Court entitled to demand it back (according to Arusyak Aleksanyan, no – ed.).
- Was Arusyak Aleksanyan, as a judge, obliged to return the given petition if the President of the Court demanded it (according to Arusyak Aleksanyan, no – ed.).
“I am charged for excess of authority. It seems to me that the first-year student is well aware that in order to excess the authority, they must be defined by certain legal acts. In this case, the indictment decision does not mention a single legal act, legal provision, by which I passed my powers. The prosecution side mentions some kind of agreement reached by me and the President of the Court, the judges of Ajapnyak-1 residence. But I stated that there was no such agreement, I did not reach such an agreement with anyone, I was not a participant in such an agreement,” Arusyak Aleksanyan said, and added that even if there was such an agreement, deviation from it should not entail criminal responsibility.
The defendant Erik Aleksanyan spoke in court next, stating that everyone knows what the content of the accusation is. It is noted that Arusyak Aleksanyan has exceeded her authority, because there was no court established on the basis of the law when the petition regarding Sergey Grigoryan was examined.
The defendant emphasized once again: the re-assigning sheet did not reach Armen Shiroyan, it was not even sent to Ajapnyak-1 residence.
“That re-assigning sheet, de jure, should have reached the staff of the judge of the relevant court. In this case, to Armen Shiroyan, so that the latter would assume authority to examine the petition, as well as to Arusyak Aleksanyan, so that the latter would have a legitimate right and duty to return the petition to the office with a report,” Erik Aleksanyan said.
He drew attention to the fact that the President of the Court requested the withdrawal of the petition addressed to Arusiak Aleksanyan by means of a phone call. “I have the relevant document, I have the relevant evidence, which gives an unequivocal answer to this question, ‘Does the President of the Court of First Instance have the right to verbally request any type of motion from any judge of the Court?”
After Erik Aleksanyan’s this statement, defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan expressed her desire to speak again. She stated that she had no duty to return that petition to the President of the Court, because such a duty is not defined by the legislation.
According to Arusyak Aleksanyan, the re-assigning did not reach the Ajapnyak-1 residence, it is known to everyone. “There is not a single person who has testified that I or someone from my staff has anything to do with that “failure”. They wanted to make something, they made it in a very ignorant, ordinary way. This case will not last long, no matter how much you (the presiding judge – ed.) or the side of the accusation drag it out, these fabricated phenomena cannot go on for long.”
Then the Presiding Judge Vahe Dolamzyan referred to the last statement of the defendant, which was related to delaying the court sessions. The defendant stated that the reason for “delaying” is due to preliminary hearings lasting for about 6 months, as well as not satisfying the request of the lawyers to interrogate the witnesses at the beginning. “I associate all this with stretching. You are stretching it as much as possible so that I remain in custody.”
The judge noted that formal court sessions did not take place, besides, the judge always gives the opportunity to make statements to all parties, including all the lawyers of the defendant, if they are present at the sessions. Arusyak Aleksanyan responded: she stated that her defense attorneys are not abusing their powers. “They were very “to the point”, short, and laconic. Do not consider them doing their professional work … i.e., are we doing mock sessions? Let’s publish it as soon as possible, and we will say: whatever you say is right.”
Arusyak Aleksanyan’s lawyer Andranik Manukyan, asked the court to understand the seemingly emotional questions of his client, because the latter has been in prison for a long time.
Then the floor was given to Public Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan. He noted that he does not share the positions of the defense side. “First, I want to congratulate Mr. Erik Aleksanyan. During the preliminary hearings, the nature and content of the accusation was not clear to him. I want to congratulate: in fact, the essence and content of the accusation became clear to Mr. Aleksanyan.”
The Prosecutor also referred to Arusyak Aleksanyan’s emotional state and mentioned that he connects the defendant’s statements today not so much with that, but with the nature and direction of her activities.
“Arusyak Aleksanyan talks about “fabricating a case”, “false accusation”. It is understandable to me why she gives such wordings, taking into account the evaluation of the judicial act made by her, not only by the side of the accusation, but also by the higher courts. It is also understandable why she speaks about illiteracy. The documents, justify what kind of “literacy” Arusyak Aleksanyan’s staff acted with,” Armen Gevorgyan said.
The Public Prosecutor once again urged the parties to be careful when making statements, the Judge addressed the parties with a similar appeal.
Erik Aleksanyan wanted to respond to that, but the Judge did not allow him to make a statement.
Details in the video.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
