All photos in the publication were taken during other court hearings involving the parties to the trial.

On 14 March, the hearing of the lawsuit regarding the claim on confiscation of the property of allegedly illicit origin of former Chief of Police Vladimir Gasparyan, Susanna Gasparyan, Heghush Galstyan, Angelina Gasparyan, the son of the Chief of Police, Angela Gasparyan took place in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court. Judge Narine Avagyan was presiding over the session.

According to Iravaban.net, Hamlet Harutyunyan, Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the General Prosecutor’s Office, said at the beginning of the session that he has a motion to file.

As the Prosecutor mentioned, on 23 February, 2024, a decision was made regarding the distribution of the burden of proof, by which the plaintiff had to prove the fact that the property built on the plot of land in the Drakhtik Community of Gegharkunik marz belongs to Heghush Galstyan by right of ownership. “We,  have asked to confiscate the development right of the plot of land at the mentioned address in Gegharkunik marz in favor of the Republic of Armenia. The request for confiscation was addressed to the property, namely the right of its belonging to Heghush Galstyan.”

The Prosecutor asked to change the decision on the distribution of the burden of proof made in the mentioned case, noting that in this part the plaintiff must prove the facts that the property built on the plot of the mentioned address belongs to Heghush Galstyan with the right of development and the fact of not justifying the rights to build the mentioned property.

According to lawyer Varazdat Asatryan, the party cannot be entitled to this petition until the subject of the claim is clarified. And in case of its absence, the said change is “at least not permissible”.

The Court decided to partially satisfy this petition, considering that Heghush Galstyan has the development right to the plot of land at the mentioned address in Gegharkunik marz, and, in fact, the plaintiff’s claim is the demand for confiscation of the right of construction of the plot, therefore, the burden of proving the fact of ownership of the property built on that plot placed on the plaintiff, the court removes it. It remains only to prove that Heghush Galstyan has the right to construction on the land.

The next motion related to the existence of an electronic flash drive of several video recordings. According to the plaintiff’s representative, there are 7 videos on the flash drive.

According to the prosecutor:

The first video proved the fact that Vladimir Gasparyan is the beneficial owner of the specified identification number and registration plate of the Range Rover Sport SC3 car. The video was published on 17 January, 2023.

The fact that Vladimir Gasparyan is the beneficial owner of the same car was proven by the second video.

The third video proves the fact that Vladimir Gasparyan is the beneficial owner of properties located in Drakhtik community of Gegharkunik marz and on Papazyan Street in Yerevan.

The fact that Vladimir Gasparyan is the beneficial owner of the car mentioned in the first two points is proven by the fourth video.

The fifth, sixth and seventh videos prove the fact that Vladimir Gasparyan is the beneficial owner of the properties in Gegharkunik region.

Due to the submitted petition, the prosecutor asked to allow the documents submitted attached to the petition as written evidence, to allow the video recordings and their electronic flash drive attached to the petition regarding the change of the petition and the basis and subject matter of the case.

“The electronic procedure of proof is much more effective,” Hamlet Harutyunyan said.

Lawyer Varazdat Asatryan objected. “Part of my objection relates to the fact that the evidence presented in this petition is, in fact, evidence obtained after investigation, moreover, it is evidence obtained after the filing of the lawsuit.”

He mentioned that he personally received this petition on 11 March, and due to his ill health, did not have the opportunity to fully address the petition. The lawyer asked to give an opportunity to reflect on the content of this motion.

The prosecutor presented his position, emphasizing: “We see that the defendant is represented by several professional lawyers at different times, that is, it is not the case that only Mr. Asatryan is the acting lawyer, even if one representative was unwell, this does not in any way deprive the defendant to perform that action through the other representative.”

According to the Prosecutor, it was recorded by the chairperson of the session several times, due to various incidents, that there is an internal belief formed by the court that actions are being taken by the representatives of the defendants to “unnecessarily” delay the session.

The court, after discussing the motion to extend the period for presenting the evidence, decided to grant it and provided the respondent time until 25 March to present new evidence, and in general to send the answers to all the requests until 8 April to all x participants of the trial.

The next court session was set for 16 April.

Mariam Shahnazaryan