On 13 March, the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan, continued the trial in the case of confiscation of illegal property from the former Governor of Syunik Surik Khachatryan and his related persons in favor of the Republic of Armenia.

According to Iravaban.net,  Gevorg Kocharyan, the representative of the General Prosecutor’s Office, Margarita Ghazaryan, the representative of the respondent Surik Khachatryan, appeared at the court session. Vahagn Grigoryan, the representative of Surik Khachatryan and Loreta Barseghyan, and other participants in the trial were notified, but did not appear.

Before submitting his objections, the respondent stated that Surik Khachatryan does not accept the claims presented in the lawsuit, he completely objects to them. He also objects to the legal and factual basis of the claim in several aspects:

First, from the institutional point of view, regarding the legality of confiscation of property of illicit origin, in particular, the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means without a guilty verdict is a judicial prosecution of property, not a person, it is also mentioned in the justifications of the law, moreover, some representatives of the competent body have such a position. “The law, de facto, is interpreted by the competent authority in such a way that it becomes a proceeding against a person. The competent authority does not try to prove the connection of the property subject to confiscation with the illegal, criminal act committed by the defendant, and with the income received as a result of that criminal act, while in the estimation of the defendant, the disclosure of this connection is of great importance.

According to the lawyer, unlike the competent body, for a person with limited financial resources, the involvement of experts and specialists is quite an expensive pleasure, perhaps there was no need to involve an economist in this case, because Gevorg Kocharyan has the appropriate qualifications, but in other cases, the competent body involves an economist.

“In this case, Surik Khachatryan does not have at least financial opportunities to attract an economist at the moment,” he emphasized.

To the question of prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan, whether petitions have been submitted to the court to remove the lien from funds or properties, so that the necessary actions can be carried out (for example, remuneration for legal services), the lawyer answered that Surik Khachatryan does not have free funds, i.e. deposit money, on which lien applied.

The respondent also expressed a position on the constitutionality of the proceedings. According to him, filing a lawsuit does not issue from the scope of the constitutional powers of the Prosecutor’s Office, the competent body has gone beyond the scope of its powers by filing such a lawsuit. “Initiating and satisfying such a claim contradicts the idea of ​​protection of the right to property established by the Constitution.”

Margarita Ghazaryan stated in her speech that the proceedings refer to the events that took place between 2004 and 2022, and as of 2022, at least for Surik Khachatryan, it is quite difficult to justify the legality of the property acquired in 2004-2005. “First, the person may not remember; second, the relevant transactions may have been made in cash; and third, the relevant evidence may not have been preserved.”

During the court session, the lawyer stated that the competent authority went beyond the scope of the study period, and also made the property acquired before the study period and the allegedly incurred expenses the subject of study.

“In 1994-1996, Surik Khachatryan held the position of the First Deputy Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Goris Political Council, in 1996 the Position of Chairman, in 1996-1999 the position of Mayor of Goris, in 1995-2004 the position of Deputy of the National Assembly, in 2004-2013 the position of Governor of Syunik. In the case of a person holding such a high position, to consider that he did not have enough financial means to buy a “Niva” car in 2004 is not based on reality,” the lawyer insisted.

The lawyer also stated that they are going to mediate on involving Haykaz Parmanyan as a third party in this case. According to the lawyer, transferring money to a close person does not always result in a contract being signed; appropriate grounds are drawn up, especially in the case of the 2000s. “All this is not taken into account by the competent authority. It also does not take into account the fact that rather small amounts, when we are talking about 20, 50, 100 thousand drams, the fact that they are legal should not be doubted, especially when it was listed what positions Surik Khachatryan held.”

The lawyer insisted that they are dealing here not with property acquired as a result of unexplained enrichment, but with property that we cannot justify with legal income and the reason for this is time.

According to the prosecutor, this issue is not a matter to be discussed in this court in general, because there are clear regulations in the law, there are no notes related to confirmation or justification in the law, naturally, both the prosecutor’s office and the court act according to the law, and the circumstances that are presented are not subject to consideration in this court.

The Court decided to continue hearing the lawyer’s objections at the next court session. The next session will be held on 28 March.

Mariam Shahnazaryan