On 15 April, the Court session in the case of Mamikon Aslanyan, head of the Vanadzor community, continued in the anti-corruption criminal Court. Presiding Judge Sargis Dadoyan,
Notably, Mamikon Alsanyan is accused of expropriating Vanadzor lands by making false documents during his tenure. According to the indictment, Suren Abovyan helped Vanadzor Community Head Mamikon Aslanyan, who is an official, to exceed the official powers and commit official forgery.
According to Iravaban.net, Arsen Isahakyan was questioned in Court as a witness in this case, and regarding the other witness, who is not in the RA, the Court received a letter from the police, which will be discussed, and then the issue of publishing his testimony will be decided.
To the judge’s question, who among those present did he know, the witness answered that he knows Mamikon Aslanyan as the Mayor of Vanadzor, before that he was a notary public; he worked as a measurer since 2010. He also knows Suren Abovyan as the architect of the city. He was not in friendly contact with anyone.
“I was contacted for the plot of land on Narekatsi Street. Her name is Svetlana, I do not remember her last name; she contacted me to divide it. She brought the certificate, we took out a section from the cadastral map, we went and measured it on the spot, then divided it to the size she wanted, and provided 3 plans. It was written under the plan that there is a burial on the plot.
He also mentioned that they did not make any deviations from the law, they wrote, and gave it.
To the question of the public prosecutor Narek Movsisyan, what kind of work did the witness do in general, he answered that since 2009 he has been doing cadastral measuring in the city of Vanadzor, and during the work he presented the purpose-operational significance according to the certificate.
When asked whether the right registration was done after the measuring was done or not, the witness answered that the plans were divided into 3 parts, they were forwarded to get state registration, but it was rejected once due to allowing a gap on his part. The disadvantage was that what was written under the plan had to be presented in the form of a separate conclusion.
– Have you or your friends, relatives petitioned the officials of Vanadzor community to provide any support in acquiring these lands?
– No, there was no need for it.
– Will you indicate whether these areas are currently being used or not?
– When I took those areas It is a criminal case pt I do not know what, it was not such a place and in addition there was an “evil eye” in it. I have no desire either.
– Were your words that you said to the investigator during the investigating recorded in the same way or not, as you read it?
– The idea was written correctly.
Defender Artak Oskanyan asked whether the witness remembers the investigator’s question regarding the order of the Government’s decision, the application of legal acts, and the witness said that he himself said that it was not his professional field, he only separated and gave according to the certificate.
The prosecutor made a motion, asking to allow the publication of the witness’s pre-examination testimony, because, in his assessment, there are contradictions in the witness’s pre-examination and trial testimony, in particular, regarding the cemetery, the location of cemeteries, burials and residential areas in the vicinity, the witness stated that there were no such. While in the pre-examination testimony he said and even concluded that this norm was not observed.
The defender objected, saying that the witness already mentioned that there is no private cemetery.
“We do not have private cemetaries; we do not have any charges related to a private cemetery. If you have to ask theoretical questions, we also have enough theoretical questions,” the lawyer said.
Accused Mamikon Aslanyan stated that during one of the previous sessions, the issue regarding the cemetery was raised again. According to him, there is no land plot in Vanadzor that can meet the “criteria” that can theoretically be considered a private or public cemetery in the future. If a question was asked during the pre-examination stage of the witness, how far the cemetery should be located from the residential area, then it is the Vanadzor city cemetery, which is not “barred” in any way to private burials or illegal burials outside that area.
The preliminary testimony of the witness was published with the permission of the Court, in connection with which the witness stated that he said the norms of the private cemetery, various issues were discussed orally with the investigator. “The investigator said, if we look at it as a private cemetery, and I said, if you look at a private one, there are special conditions in the case of a private one, and I only expressed my opinions, it is not like I said that this is the form according to the law. I do not even know it.”
During the question-and-answer session regarding the lands, the accused Mamikon Aslanyan objected, telling the prosecutor why he did not ask whether the witness was aware that an illegal burial had taken place and the municipality had drawn up administrative acts regarding it.
He mentioned: “We do not talk as much as we say. You come again, you raise the same issue. Why are you asking these questions, that, let’s suppose, Arsen said that according to my eye gauge it is not 300 meters or 150 meters away, what does it have to do with it, those are illegal graves, who is disputing its legality here? I understand that they took 14 volumes and how many volumes were sent here, you must somehow filter, and do laundry, I do not know what to do.”
In response to the accused, the prosecutor said: “If this is a laundry room for anyone in the meeting hall, I have to disappoint the letters. For me, this is not a laundry room, and I have nothing to do with doing laundry at all. Accused Mamikon Aslanyan shows some kind of nervous, convulsed behavior, if he is in such a situation that he cannot control his emotions, so I will ask the Court to declare a break.”
The judge presented the entered note, in which it is said that the witness Susanna Martirosyan is in the Russian Federation, and no information has been received regarding the latter’s return to the Republic of Armenia.
With the agreement of the parties, the preliminary testimony of the witness was published.
In this case, the defense side will present its petitions at the next Court session.
The questioning of the witness ended, the session was adjourned.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
