The trial in the case of MP Levon Kocharyan and Sergey Asaturov, presided over by Judge Karen Farkhoyan, has started in the “Kentron” Seat of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction.
2 defendants were charged with violence against police officers in order to interfere with their legitimate official activities.
According to Iravaban.net, Arayik Nersisyan, a member of the Artsakh Chamber of Advocates represents Asaturov is in Court. Attorneys Erik Aleksanyan, Alexander Kochubaev and Aram Vardevanyan represent Levon Kocharyan.
Asaturov’s defense attorney Arayik Nersisyan informed the Court that he wants to file a motion to remove the order on measure of restraint “absence ban” against his client, because the defendant is unable to perform his professional duties. “I have one more request to stop the criminal prosecution.”
According to the lawyer, disobedience actions were carried out in the same way in 2018, but they did not cause any consequences.
“If the basis of the accusation is the fact of moving forward in a chain, holding each other’s arms, then during the famous events of 2018, such actions were widely performed by various groups,” Araik Nersisyan said.
In his turn, Asaturov noted that moving forward in a chain, holding hands during demonstrations is done for security reasons. “During demonstrations, when we are pushed, we fall to the ground, and we are run over. We walked this way for safety reasons, to maintain our balance.”
The Presiding Judge said that the Court would not listen to the opinion of the other participants in the proceedings regarding the presented motions, as during the preliminary hearings the Court had addressed a group of issues in a set sequence.
Alexander Kochubaev said that he wants to submit a motion to challenge the Public Prosecutor Arthur Danielyan, but before that he wants to ask him questions. The lawyer inquired about the relationship between the Prosecutor and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s family.
The Public Prosecutor noted that the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for such a question-and-answer procedure. “I will not answer any questions, because the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for such a procedure.”
Photo: from the session of 5 June, 2023, with the participation of Ashot Pashinyanց
Kochubaev mentioned that such answer bolstered his opinion that the challenge petition should be submitted. A video under the following title: “The Prosecutor defending the Charge and Ashot Pashinyan are talking intimately”, was published on 5 June, 2023,
The defender mentioned that the video and the manner of the answer of the Prosecutor in the Court, it might be assumed that there were problems related to legality and independence. He mentioned that contact between the victim and the accuser is prohibited. “Such intimate contact with the victim does not issue from the Criminal Procedure Code.”
According to Kochubaev, it is not normal that Levon Kocharyan’s case was transferred to Arthur Danielyan, since the latter is a representative of the opposition forces.
Levon Kocharyan once again claimed in Court that he did not commit violence against anyone. Asaturov joined the petition, adding that this case is completely clear to the public.
The Public Prosecutor said that it is a surprise for him that Kochubaev does not distinguish between the prosecutor’s control over the legality of the pre-trial criminal proceedings and the defense of the accusation in Court. He noted that the presented petition is baseless and subject to rejection.
“You give an example where Ashot Pashinyan was a victim, that is, a party to the accusation, and I was a public accuser. You mention that an intimate conversation took place, what kind of intimate conversation is it? In general, how did you interpret that it was an intimate conversation? Your person is well known to me, in fact, I can understand why you present it like that. Your so-called “intimate” conversation does not exist and you cannot justify it, it does not exist in objective reality,” said the prosecutor accuser said and added that he did not see grounds for recusal and does not provide recusal.
Erik Aleksanyan demanded clarification regarding the phrase “Your person is well known to me”. Arthur Danielyan stated that he had no intention of offending, he meant knowing Alexander Kochubaev in other criminal cases, as well as the interviews he gave regarding this case.
One of the victim police officers said: “Levon Kocharyan named me a policeman who beat him, but I didn’t beat anyone, I didn’t beat him either.”
Karen Farkhoyan, in turn, noted that the Court would not allow the parties to insult each other. At the same time, the Judge stated that he rejects the petition presented by Alexander Kochubaev, because it does not follow the requirements of the Criminal Procedure.
After the announcement of the decision, the defense asked for a break.
After the break, the representatives of the defense argued that the testimonies given by the victims were not credible. However, the Prosecutor noted that the discussions of the credibility of the testimonies are not an issue of this trial stage and it should be different from the press conference.
“We object to your actions, honorable Court, in the sense that you should not allow other statements, interpretations of testimonies, expressions of opinions on credibility that do not arise from the given trial stage, thereby problems with the right to be heard of both the accused and the defense cannot arise, the Public Prosecutor said.
The Judge said that they have no time limit. Lawyer Alexander Kuchubaev addressed the judge. “Attention, question. What does Sergey Asaturov have to do with all of this, honorable Court?”
According to Kochubaev, no one testified against Asaturov. Levon Kocharyan made a speech.
“Honorable Court, the case has been assigned to you. I do not think any Judge would be happy to have this case, but we have what we have. I understand that they do not like it in the Court when there are some discussions outside the legal framework. In this case, it is very difficult to remain in a purely legal framework, because if all this was in the legal framework, I would not have been here. I understand what the prosecutors want, but the essence of the case is political, no matter how much we do not talk about it. Let’s not make a fool of anyone, everyone understands very well. No one asked me about the circumstances that are included in the accusation. Why were you walking towards the police? It’s a simple question, isn’t it? If a person wants to understand the reality, he should have asked that question. No one wants to know what happened. The only person who asked me that question was the investigator in the case in which I am a victim. “Our family has been going through all this for 5 years,” he said.
The preliminary Court hearing, of 27 February, was postponed.
