On 22 May, 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 Aslanyan 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, witnesses Anahit Ghazumyan, Aren Grigoryan, Artur Khechoyan appeared at the court session in this case.

Anahit Ghazumyan was the first of the subpoenaed witnesses to be questioned. She mentioned that she knew both Mamikon Aslanyan and Suren Abovyan. She knew Aslanyan as the Mayor of Vanadzor, Abovyan as the architect of the city, but she had no relationship with them.

The witness said that in 2018, her son informed her that there was a plot of land on Aghayan Street in the municipality of Vanadzor city, which was put for auction by the municipal administration, her son was interested in it, and decided to participate in the auction. He was declared the winner of the auction held in the municipality.

When the public prosecutor asked whether she was aware that the area was a public green area according to the Vanadzor City Master Plan of 2014, which was among the restrictions under Article 67 of the RA Land Code, that is, it was not subject to use.

Defense representative Artak Voskanyan objected to the question, saying that no such facts exist, and that land has never been object of such an article. The court did not accept the objection, and the witness replied that she did not study it, she was not aware of it. Her son owns a measuring company.

The judge noted that the witness had told Evelina Galstyan to come and participate in the auction with her, and asked if the employees of Vanadzor Municipality, the participants of the auction or the management team, for example, Mamikon Aslanyan, Suren Abovyan, were aware of the process, that there was an agreement with Evelina Galstyan, the witness said that it was between the two of them, and in the end she told about it to her son only.

Later, the witness speaking about alienation of the land, said that it was due to the fact that her son had a serious health problem and was receiving quite expensive treatments, at that moment it was necessary to do so.

When asked to whom the land was alienated, the witness said that she did not know. The questioning of the witness is over.

Artur Khechoyan was interrogated next. He mentioned that he participated in the auction at the request of his neighbor, who told him that the auction would not take place if he would appear alone. He stated that the neighbor’s name and surname is Andreasyan Aramayis, as far as he remembers, there were other auctions on that day, and there were two of them at that particular auction.

When asked by the judge if he saw Suren Abovyan during the auction, the witness said that he did not remember. Regarding the execution of the payment, the witness said that as far as he remembers the payment was made in a bank, he could not remember anything else.

Regarding the land, he said that it belongs to his friend, they needed the land for their business, and there is no building built there now.

To the public prosecutor’s question about what his friend does, the witness said that he is engaged in iron work, the purchase of land was connected with the fact that the work was done in their yard, and it was not convenient.

The questioning of the witness is over. Further Aren Grigorya, another summoned witnesses, witness was questioned. He participated in the auction as well and won, and according to the witness it was done legally.

The public prosecutor asked the witness whether he knew Davit Aghajanyan or not and what kind of relationship he had with him, the witness answered positively. He said that he knew the latter and they communicated with each other only within the scope of service. He mentioned that the auction took place in 2021 or 2022, he did not remember precisely. He participated in the auction with Davit Aghajanyan.

Defendant Mamikon Aslanyan asked the witness a question, saying whether any of them had given a guarantee that the third or fourth person could not participate in that auction and was it possible that someone else would win, the witness said that there was no such thing.

Lawyer Artak Voskanyan asked if he paid money to participate in the auction, the witness said yes, but he did not remember anything about the details at the moment.

The public prosecutor requested the publication of the pre-trial testimony, claiming that there were certain contradictions in the testimony given in court.

The defense side objected, stating that it was unreasonable to register any contradiction at this stage on the basis that the contradiction was not related to the accusation, the pre-trial testimony should not be published.

“The contradiction lies in who actually took the initiative to participate in the given auction, in order to show more that the given auction had a formal nature,” the public accuser emphasized.

Mamikon Aslanyan stated that for them the main condition for the auction ant the fiction actions not to take place was always been the fact of participation of one party, and they repeatedly resorted to legislative initiatives. “I do not remember in which year the law was already changed so that we do not face such a case, that is, the auction can be held with just one person, therefore, especially in small towns, if someone wants to buy space for a garage, wants to participate, there is no competition by and large.”

The motion presented by the prosecution was accepted by the court, as there were significant contradictions.

The interrogation that took place in the pre-trial body, which took place in 2021, was published.
Regarding the circumstances in the case, the witness said that in 2008-2009 he knew Davit Aghajanyan, with whom he served in the same military unit until 2010, and also lived in the same district.

“About two years ago, I do not remember the exact period, David told me that he wanted to buy a plot of land at an auction, and in order for the auction to take place, he asked me to formally participate in the auction with him as the 2nd participant, and I did not refuse because we are in a close relationship.”

According to the testimony, David gave the witness 25,000 drams, which he paid on his behalf to the account number of the Vanadzor municipality and submitted an application for the right to participate in the auction. During the auction, the starting price of the plot was announced, and he expressed his desire to buy the plot at that price, David offered a higher price after him and was declared the winner. After that, 25 thousand drams were returned to him.

The witness also stated that he filled out the statement completely and signed it personally. “I did not intend to buy the land, I participated in that auction at Davit’s request, and I submitted the application personally, written by my own hand.”

“To present the contradiction more clearly, I should mention: from the beginning, you stated in your testimony that acquiring the plot of land was your and David’s wish, but during the preliminary investigation you testified that you never intended to acquire the plot of land and that you participated in the auction at Davit’s request, so that the auction would take place, because there should be at least 2 participants for the auction to take place. How will you clarify this contradiction?”

The witness answered that as far as he remembers, it was before that, they wanted to do something together.

At this court hearing, the interrogation of witnesses summoned to court ended.

Mariam Shahnazaryan

Details in the video.