On 19 April, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court held a hearing on the confiscation of assets and funds of allegedly illicit origin of the former Mayor of Yerevan, currently a member of the National Assembly Taron Margaryan and his family members.

According to Iravaban.net, the representative of the defendants, attorney Mushegh Arakelyan, stated at the beginning of the session that he has a motion to challenge. It referred to the procedures of the previous Court hearings, the rejection of submitted motions and the judge’s behavior.

In particular, he mentioned that during one of the previous Court sessions, he informed that on 4 October, 2023, at 12:40, he had to participate in another Court session and asked to postpone this Court session, but the Court ignored the request: citing the greater importance of the Court hearings scheduled in this case.

He said that the Court session was scheduled for the same day at 10:00, he tried to find out about the possible duration of the Court session, but his question remained unanswered.

According to Arakelyan, immediately after the beginning of the Court session scheduled for 4 October, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., he had submitted a petition to hold the given Court session until 12:00 p.m. due to the fact that on the same day he was to participate in another Court case. However, without any clear reason, the Court rejected that petition as well.

“I find that under such conditions, it is obvious that the Court has a biased attitude towards the trial participant, which is an obvious and gross violation of the judge’s rules of conduct,” Arakelyan said.

The lawyer continued saying that at the Court session held on 21 March, 2024, he presented an appeal to the presiding judge Karapet Badalyan; however the petition was rejected according to the legal regulations of the mentioned part of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, the presiding judge did not in any way reveal malice, dishonesty in presenting the given petition, did not raise their standard, did not refer to any justification or reason for the fact that the representative of the respondent disrupted the Court session and delayed the investigation of the Court case.

The lawyer, citing several factual bases, also mentioned that the Chairman clearly shows bias and discrimination with his words or behavior, which does not contribute to the formation of trust and respect for the Court .

The parties expressed their position regarding the motion of challenge. Ruzanna Khudaverdyan, the Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office, said that there was no reason to file an objection, and that the petition should be rejected.

Other representatives of the respondent’s side stated that the right to object belongs to the party, the points presented in the objection are indisputable, and the legal analyzes are also sound.

Judge Karapet Badalyan asked Mushegh Arakelyan a question about the challenge.

– Do I understand correctly that you think that the Court has or shows a discriminatory attitude towards you?

– Dear Court , in addition to implementing the wording to express that idea, certain factual circumstances that open up and justify the given idea are also included in the petition, which I read about.

The lawyer emphasized that the submitted petition, which was related to being burdened with another Court session, which was supposed to be held in Aragatsotn Marz, was rejected by the Court with the reason or justification of not showing sufficient diligence.

– Where is the discrimination according to you?

– It is described in more detail in my petition.

– Has the Court shown discrimination against you on any of the grounds of your nationality, race, personal characteristics or other grounds of discrimination?

– Honorable Court, regarding the first ones listed by you, of course not.

– I want to understand what you mean. In other words, the Court rejected your petition, do you consider it discrimination?

– It seems to me that during these 40 minutes I presented my motion in as much detail as possible and I once again assert that the factual circumstances are present in the motion.

The Court session in this case was postponed. The Court act will be published on 23 April.

Mariam Shahnazaryan