On 27 March, the trial in the case of the former Chairman of the Urban Planning Committee, Vahagn Vermishyan, continued in the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal. Presiding Judge Karen Amiryan. Judges Armen Hovhannisyan and Mesrop Makyan.

Notablt all defendants, except for Vahagn Vermishyan, objected to the video recording and photography of the session.

According to Iravaban.net , the session started about 35 minutes later of the scheduled time. The Court of Appeal had sent a letter to transfer the defendant from the place designated for house arrest to the court, and and then take him home after the session. The Presiding Judge Karen Amiyan mentioned that the police informed they Could not wait until the end of the court session. Vahe Bakhshyan, the Senior Inspector of the Community Police of the Central Police Department, was invited to the courtroom; he clarified the situation, saying that the application did not show that the accused was under house arrest, that was why the reaction was like that. He undertook obligation to wait until the end of the court session and accompany the defendant Vahagn Vermishyan to his home.

The first issue that was discussed in the court concerned the confiscation of Vahagn Vermishyan’s property of illicit origin. In the mentioned proceedings, the court distributed the burden of proof, in order to receive the data, the lawyers should apply to the state authorities of the Russian Federation, through the lawyer there, to whom Vermishyan should grant powers.

The lawyer asked to allow either the notary’s visit to Vahagn Vermishyan, or Vermishyan’s visit to the notary’s office. During the previous session, the content of the power of attorney was discussed, which does not contain wordings regarding mortgage or alienation of real estate, but Public Prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan expressed his concern about the content.

“There are notes there that say ‘with the right to have access to all accounts opened in my name, which includes companies and commercial banks located in the Russian Federation. However, I would also like to bring to the attention of the Court that apart from the absence of transactions related to real estate in the power of attorney, the petition also mentions the management or availability of funds. As for the notary service, I think that the petition cannot be satisfied with such reasoning.”

In response to the Prosecutor’s concern, Representative Armen Melkumyan explained that “access to accounts” does not refer to managing money, but to receiving information about accounts.

The 2nd part of the motion referred to giving the representatives in the case of confiscation of property of illicit origin the opportunity to visit Vermishyan, which was granted. Armen Melkumyan and Inga Sarafyan will have the opportunity to call and visit the accused two days a week. Referring to the first part of the petition, the Court asked to provide the data of a specific notary, who will be able to visit the defendant and perform the necessary actions.

After that Levon Sahakyan, the Lawyer of the defendants Mushegh Avetisyan, Elen Grigoryan and Vrezh Asryan, summarized the appellate complaint regarding his clients, and gave the floor to John Farkhoyan’s Defense Attorney Yerem Sargsyan.

The Defense Attorney stated that there were procedural violations, taking into account those, it can be said that an objective verdict was not made, the accused was not acquitted. According to Sargsyan, the investigation body performed an action that is not provided by the Procedural Code, has no jurisdiction, no conditions and grounds. “There are many procedural violations, they are significant.”

According to Yerem Sargsyan, the alleged violations started with the investigation body, which prepared the materials for 5 months and then sent them to the investigator, but if there were grounds, the investigation body itself should have initiated the case. “It did not have the right to send materials to the investigator, it said: although I also have the right, I am obliged to initiate a criminal case, but let me not do it and use the right, come on, I will not do it. Investigator, you do it.”

In addition, the Defense Attorney spoke about the illegality of the investigator’s actions. “With all due respect to all investigators, who is the NSS investigator who took the materials and initiated a case?” I am not saying anything personal. Again, it turns out that an inappropriate subject makes an inappropriate decision. This is the first problem.”

In addition, Yerem Sargsyan noted that Deputy Prosecutor General Davit Melkonyan did not have the authority to assign the case to the NSS Investigative Department. “All this was done by inappropriate subjects, even subjects who do not have the right to browse the materials of this case.”

However, the presentation of the lawyer’s appeal remained incomplete, because the Court was overloaded, and in addition, it had to discuss the petition of Vahagn Vermishyan’s defense.

While still in the detention center, defendant Vermishyan had dental problems. As he comments, 16 of the 30 teeth remained due to not having the opportunity to use the services of a dentist. The Court allowed him to visit the dentist once every two weeks.

After the hearing of the motion, the session was adjourned.

It should be noted that the First Instance Court found Vahagn Vermishyan guilty of this episode as well and sentenced him to a total of 8 years in prison.

Despite the accusations, the lawyers claim that Vahagn Vermishyan is innocent and they expect an acquittal decision on all episodes from the Anti-corruption Court of Appeal.

Anahit Amirkhanyan