On 28 March, the Anti-Corruption Court held the hearing on examination of the claim about the demand for the confiscation of the illegally obtained property of the wanted former Prosecutor General Gevorg Kostanyan, his former wife Lilit Kostanyan, Arman Galstyan, his wife Teresa Gevorgyan and the nephew of the former Prosecutor General Ara Kostanyan. The Presiding Judge is Lili Drmeyan.

According to Iravaban.net, the Judge said that within the framework of the session, the defendant should ask his questions about the lawsuit, and the plaintiff should answer them. Varazdat Asatryan mentioned that he has motions, but he will present them later. He asked, if possible, to provide the written version of the answers as well.

Regarding the written format of the answers, the Prosecutor said that the competent body does not find it appropriate to present the answers in writing to the parties, as well as to the court.

The parties passed to the question-and-answer stage. Varazdat Asatryan inquired if there are any other materials in addition to the materials in their hands, which the competent body has, but they were not given to the parties of the trial.

The Prosecutor noted that at the time of filing the claim, all the documents attached to the statement of claim were provided to the defendants and their representatives in electronic version.

According to Asatryan, the information on the property of Gevorg Kostanyan and his related persons, which are on the laser disc, was not provided to the lawyer, what is the reason?

The Prosecutor answered: “Also, the contents of the laser discs attached to other documents received in response to the requests of the competent authority were inserted into one and provided to the respondents, but even if we exclude that any material was provided to you by the competent authority, you are the first judicial officer in this case. You postponed the session on the basis of receiving and familiarizing yourself with the materials in the court, therefore, the exercise of the right to familiarize yourself with these cases was ensured.”

The Prosecutor added that not only that disk, but also the laser disks attached to the answers to the requests sent to the Cadastre Committee of the National Land Registry were not sent separately, their contents were inserted into one laser disk and there is no substantive difference.

The next question referred to the letter of Prosecutor Davtyan, which was addressed to the head of the department. It was mentioned there that the Prosecutor requests to transfer the case to another Prosecutor, attaching the relevant materials. The defender asked to inform about what materials we are talking about. The Prosecutor replied that it is about all the dated materials and documents in the case files before that date.

– In the same Prosecutor’s letter dated 8 October, 2020, addressed to Galyan, there is another signature. Please clarify, by whom it was done and when.

-According to Article 4, Part 4 of the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin”, the decision to start an investigation is immediately sent to the Deputy Prosecutor General from the day it is made, therefore the signature is the Deputy Prosecutor General Srbuhi Galyan’s.

– In the disc, which was presented to us, there is information containing banking secrets of 12 persons, please tell me whether these persons were informed in the prescribed manner that their data was examined by the competent authority within the framework of this proceeding.

– Confidential information of 11 individuals and 4 legal entities was obtained, according to the law, an interested person is considered to be a person whose rights and responsibilities may be affected by the confiscation of property, respectively, those persons who were not notified, were not considered an interested person, therefore, they were not informed.

Regarding the inquiries and materials provided to the parties, Varazdat Asatryan stated that in his first question, he emphasized that apart from the submitted materials, there are other materials that were not provided to the responding party, but it was said no.

– What is the result, are some simply not provided or…?

– They are the basis of the claim…

– Leave the claim aside, it is not only the claim being discussed, the basis of the claim is your study, no one can evaluate those actions except the Court.

– We have provided those materials in the initial summary stage.

– In addition to the materials provided in the preliminary summary stage, are there any other materials that were not provided to the participants?

– No, all the materials were provided to the respondents.

During the question-and-answer session, Varazdat Asatryan told the Prosecutor again that if there is an option of written answers, they can provide them to the Court, and the responding party will also get to know each other.

He said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant to debate all the time. If we choose that format, let’s move forward with it, isn’t it more effective that way?”

The Judge responded: “Don’t turn it into a debate. Question-answer-statement: that is the format.”

The Prosecutor noted that within the framework of this Court session, the legal assessment of the property in Tsaghkadzor is currently under consideration by the competent authority, and when the appropriate final legal assessment is decided, at that time the competent authority will find it appropriate to answer all questions related to that real estate in general.

To the Judge’s question, why the answer regarding this private house is not final, the Public Prosecutor mentioned that Ara Kostanyan’s representative, Ilona Mirzoyan, presented the relevant evidence while she was on vacation, and it still needs to be discussed in order of superiority.

Varazdat Asatryan’s next question was: Did the competent authority warn the expert about criminal responsibility or not, and in what way was it done?

The Prosecutor mentioned that the duty to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation is stipulated by the Criminal Code, and the responsibility for issuing an attached conclusion, is informed in the Court, and only after that it has evidentiary value. A corresponding protocol was drawn up regarding the warning.

The questions presented by the respondent were examined in row, Nelly Ter-Torosyan answered Varazdat Asatryan’s questions, and at the same time objections were raised regarding the answers and positions.

Mariam Shahnazaryan

Photos in the material were taken during other court sessions.