On 8 April, the trial in the case of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan and Lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was continued in the Anti-Corruption Court. Judge Vahe Dolmazyan chaired the session.

On 17 October, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council approved the petitions of the General Prosecutor’s Office regarding the initiation of criminal prosecution against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and provided consent to deprivation of liberty. Within the framework of the same case, the lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was also charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code, that is, he assisted an official in abusing office or official powers or the influence caused by them or exceeding the powers. In the framework of this case, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant Tamara Petrosyan was also charged.

According to the accusation, the judge is accused of making an obviously unjust court act and abusing official powers. She satisfied the petition of Erik Aleksanyan, the defense attorney of Sergey Grigoryan, who is known as “Faz”, by changing the measure of restrain and releasing him from custody for a bail of 2.5 million drams. According to the prosecution, Sergey Grigoryan is a friend of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s brother, Rustam Aleksanyan.

The defendants do not accept the charges against them.

According to Iravaban.net, the assistant of Judge Armen Shirinyan of “Ajapnyak-1” seat was questioned during the court session. The prosecution asked the witness to inform the court whether the latter was on duty as of 17 September, 2022 or not.

The witness said that since the court is on permanent duty, they were always on duty, if they were not on vacation. The public prosecutor was interested. “Do you remember the decisions related to the person named Sergey Grigoryan? You prepared the drafts. What do you know about this case?”

The witness said that the first arrest petition was examined by Judge Shiroyan. “After that, as far as I remember, two more motions for an order of the measure of restraint were filed, proceedings were initiated, and both were rejected. Attorney Smbat Minasyan submitted the first motion and Erik Aleksanyan submitted the second one.

In response to the question of the prosecutor, whether the assistant passed the working versions of the mentioned decisions to anyone, the witness said that she does not remember whether Tamara Petrosyan addressed her or not. “There were cases when Tamara Petrosyan and I exchanged working versions with each other for the purpose of help.”

The prosecutor reminded that the working version of the decision made by Judge Armen Shiroyan to initiate proceedings in connection with the petition submitted by Erik Aleksanyan was found during the search of the defendant Tamara Petrosyan’s work computer.

“Have you been contacted by the office of the Chairman of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan and asked to return the previously signed petitions to the office?” It was Saturday, not a working day,” the prosecution asked the witness. The witness answered that there was no such incident.

The presiding judge asked the witness, when exactly did the accused Tamara Petrosyan asked for the working version of the decision made by judge Shiroyan? Judge Armen Shirinyan’s assistant said that since there were other similar cases during that time, she does not remember the day when the working version of the decision of the specified case was exchanged.

“Have there been cases when, there were many such petitions related to Arshak Hakobyan that other judges except Judge Armen Shiroyan also examine these petitions?” Vahe Dolmazyan asked.

The witness stated that she does not have such information. “I do not know under what circumstances it was registered, I only know and remember that several petitions were registered to us regarding this person. Arusyak Aleksanyan examined another motion for an order of measure of restraint regarding another person. Since her authority had already been terminated, the case assigned to her was again assigned to Mr. Shiroyan. I am not aware of any other circumstances. The petition examined by Arusyak Aleksanyan was presented by Tigran Atanesyan.

The accused in the case, attorney Erik Aleksanyan, asked the witness if she ever received the case, when the judge was out of office and reported to the judge that she received this or that case and, whether she noticed, that case was examined by another judge as well, did she informed the judge about it and, if she did so, why she did it, and what was unusual there.

“Whatever we received, and if the judge was out of office, I always called and reported about what we received and briefly told what the matter was. I will definitely report, because it is a rare case that a judge has examined the arrest case, but the petition for an order of measure of restraint has been assigned by another judge,” she said.

Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney Andranik Manukyan inquired from the witness if there was a case when they received a motion from the office, which referred to the list of those subject to immediate investigation, but which did not contain the appropriate signature of the Chairman of the court, for example, the judge. “Simply by virtue of the fact that the given judge is on duty on the given day, the office employee, after making the relevant registrations, should immediately give the petition to the judge on duty by virtue of this norm, I repeat, without the appropriate signature of the Chairman of the court.”

The witness stated that she does not remember such incidents.

Details in the video.