On 29 February, the trial in the case of the former chairman of the Urban Planning Committee, Vahagn Vermishyan, continued in the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal.
The prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan, the accused Vahagn Vermishyan, his lawyer Alexander Kochubaev, the accused Vazgen Poghosyan, his lawyer Gagik Khachikyan, the accused Gagik Galstyan, his lawyers Armen Feroyan and Liana Gasparyan, the accused John Farkhoyan, the accused Mushegh Avetisyan, Vrezh Asryan and their defender Levon Sahakyan appeared at the court session. The accused Elen Grigoryan did not appear.
According to Iravaban.net, the Presiding Judge Karen Amiryan announced at the beginning of the session that Vermishyan’s representative informed about the need to present certain evidence within the framework of the proceedings in the Anti-Corruption Court regarding the confiscation of property of illicit origin.
Vahagn Vermishyan’s representative Armen Melkumyan in the mentioned civil case, was not present at the trial. He submitted a petition to the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal regarding obtaining permission of the penitentiary to approve the power of attorney signed by the accused in this case.
Public prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan stated that he did not receive the mentioned motion. If it is satisfied, the lawyer in Russia would have the authority to make inquiries and receive information about Vahagn Vermishyan’s income.
“We are talking about the property acquired before I came to Armenia,” Vermishyan said in court. The court decided to postpone the consideration of the petition presented by Armen Melkumyan.
Further, Vermishyan’s defense attorney Alexander Kochubaev reminded that he submitted a petition regarding the change of the order of restraint, which has not yet been discussed.
The prosecutor emphasized that, in his opinion, the court has already addressed the issue, it is another question whether there is some new circumstance that changes the necessity of examining the order of restraint, if there is such a new circumstance, they can listen to the new circumstance and express position.
Gagik Galstyan’s defense attorney Armen Feroyan, objected, saying that Kochubaev’s petition is subject to consideration. “Of course, significant circumstances have changed, Mr. Vermishyan was detained so that he would not influence or obstruct the witnesses. However, the witnesses in the case have already been questioned in court.”
Lawyer Liana Gasparyan announced in the court that the Criminal Court of Appeal should reverse the judicial act regarding Gagik Galstyan and declare his innocence. Gagik Galstyan’s defense attorney Armen Feroyan referred to several evidence.
“There is a video where you can see how Mr. Galstyan approaches Vahagn Vermishyan’s office, hands him an envelope, says, but this is from me, Vermishyan does not take it, Galstyan hardly leaves the envelope in his office, says that this is nothing. Mr. Vermishyan says there is still work to be done for the museum,” the defender said.
Vahagn Vermishyan was charged with 7 episodes, one of which refers to architect Jim Torosyan’s medals. Gagik Galstyan and Vazgen Poghosyan were also charged with the mentioned episode.
Vermishyan learned, then in August 2019, during the gathering organized on the occasion of Builders’ Day, he informed Gagik Galstyan that the commemorative medals of the famous architect Jim Torosyan were for sale, and he was going to buy them and hand them over to the National Museum-Institute of Architecture named after Alexander Tamanyan..
Gagik Galstyan replied that he and other builders will also participate in their acquisition. The commemorative medals were purchased, for which Vermishyan personally paid 8000 USD. He handed over the medals to the museum, asking the director to state that they were given by an anonymous donor.
In October 2019, Gagik Galstyan came to his office and, being informed about the acquisition of commemorative medals, gave 5,000 USD, saying that Vermishyan should not pay this cost alone. The Head of the Committee did not want to take the money because he was financially secure, but in order not to offend Gagik Galstyan, he took it and promised to donate the money to the museum fund. The “desire to participate” in the purchase of the medals mentioned by the prosecution was described as a bribe, in order to patronize the service of an official in favor of Vazgen Poghosyan and Gagik Galstyan, as well as to perform any action within the scope of his powers and to facilitate an action in their favor using the official position.
“We have said from the beginning that there is a museum of architects named after Jim Torosyan, and the commemorative medals sold at the Vernissage should have been purchased for that museum. Mr. Galstyan tells Vermishyan that there is no problem, and they had to collect them at any cost and donate to the museum. Galstyan noted that Vermishyan acquired them because he was the first to see them, and he donated the medals to the museum, regarding which there is a video on YouTube where Vermishyan makes a speech that those commemorative medals were purchased with their own funds. The defense comes to the conclusion that the presented evidence was evaluated exclusively with an incriminating angle and was not considered at all with an exculpatory angle. “Giving money to a person is not giving a bribe yuet,” Armen Feroyan says.
“It was my duty, it was my soul’s duty, I didn’t say anything to anyone, I took it, I donated it to the museum for 8 thousand dollars,” Vahagn Vermishyan in court said.
According to Prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan, the defense side puts forward the hypothesis that the accused acted based on friendly principles, they acted for the museum, and it is a tactic to defend themselves from the accusation, a hypothesis that is not justified.
Levon Sahakyan, an attorney of the AM law office, also presented his position, which was related to the fact that the act attributed to his clients was not committed by them. “The court should come to the conclusion that the crime committed by Mushegh Avetisyan, Elen Grigoryan and Vrezh Asryan was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, that they allegedly prepared and used a fake document.”
According to the indictment, Mushegh Avetisyan and Natalya Chernikova, having reached a preliminary agreement with each other, with the help of Elen Grigoryan and Vrezh Asryan, tried to release Vazgen Poghosyan and Vahagn Vermishyan, who were caught by law enforcement agencies, from responsibility or in any way useful. “I must note that this hypothesis is not supported even by the sufficient completeness of the evidence that overcomes the threshold of reasonable doubt, that these receipts were dated back or the invoice was fake, the only evidence related to these circumstances were exclusively that of Mushegh Avetisyan, Vrezh Asryan and Elen Grigoryan testimonies”.
According to the lawyer, there was no case that anyone reported about their being useful to Vazgen Poghosyan or Vahagn Vermishyan. “Ellen Grigoryan and Vrezh Asryan probably did not know Mr. Vermishyan at all, let alone they were aware of this intention and acted as accomplices. Even if the court came to the conclusion that they jointly prepared a receipt or other document with a later date, then the latter cannot be found guilty of the crime they are accused of.”
He also mentioned that the Court of First Instance reached an unprecedented conclusion, considering these evidences “semi-admissible”. “The court came to the conclusion that the testimony given by Mushegh Avetisyan, Elen Grigoryan and Vrezh Asryan contradicts the precedent decision of Germany.”
Attorney Alexander Kochubaev offered to discuss his motion. He also claimed: the witnesses were interrogated, Vahagn Vermishyan’s order of restraint should be changed. “Our motion is about replacing arrest with bail.”
The lawyer proposed to replace the arrest with a bail of 20 million drams, taking into account the social situation of the person. “All the accounts and other property assets of Vahagn Vermishyan and his close relatives are under arrest, and paying these 20 million drams is an extremely heavy burden for Vahagn Vermishyan, but we have no choice.”The day will come, I will not be a lawyer, the honorable prosecutor will not be a prosecutor, you will not be in court, but the legacy will remain, the decision will remain, after all, why did Vahagn Vermishyan remain in custody for 4 years?”
Prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan stated in response that the petition is subject to rejection, because after the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of the order of restraint, no new significant factual circumstances emerged.
“Particular attention should be paid to the fact that we may have a problem with the proper performance of the duties imposed on the accused,” the prosecutor noted.
Thus, Alexander Kochubaev proposed to replace Vahagn Vermishyan’s detention with bail, and if necessary, apply the measure of restraint “house arrest” along with it.
Kochubaev also proposed, if necessary, to prohibit Vermishyan from having meetings with the exception of his attorney counsel and close relatives, as well as to limit the right to telephone calls.
“I have 2 new grandchildren, I want to smell their heads every day,” Vermishyan added.
The court, taking into account the questions raised by the defense attorney, the need to study the factual circumstances, postponed the session. The decision on the petition will be published on 4 March.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
