On 24 May, the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court presided over by Judge Tigran Davtyan, continued the Court session in the case of the National Nero of Armenia, former Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan and 12 other defendants.

It should be noted that in addition to Andranik Piloyan, Ashot Hakobyan, Vigen Mkrtchyan, Hrachya Yeremyan, Mihrdat Matevosyan, Artur Ohanyan, Ara Yaghjyan, Gor Hambardzumyan, Artak Beibutyan, Tatul Gevorgyan, Tigran Gasparyan, Gagik Poghosyan and Vigen Grigoryan were also charged.

According to Iravaban.net, the motions regarding the inadmissibility of evidence were discussed at this court session.

Andranik Piloyan’s lawyer Andranik Manukyan, presented his petition first. The motion was about making a decision to recognize the results of the internal observation operative-investigative measures (OIM) conducted on Andranik Piloyan, which are an extra-procedural document, as well as the examination protocols as a result of all that, as inadmissible evidence.

The defender recorded that on 29 November, 2021, a decision was made by the Directorate of Economic Security and Countering Corruption of the National Security Service to initiate a petition for permission to conduct an OIM, by which a permission was requested from the court to carry out an internal inspection operative-investigative measure against Andranik Piloyan for a period of 2 months.

“On the same day, the court made a decision to grant the petition. On 25 January, 2022, the same official made a decision to initiate a petition for permission to carry out an internal observation operative-investigative measure, by which a permission was requested from the court to carry out an internal observation operative-investigative measure for a period of 2 months. On the same day, the court granted the aforementioned petition,” Manukyan said.

According to him, by the decisions of the court of 4 March, 2022, the mentioned petitions regarding obtaining permission to conduct an internal surveillance of Piloyan for a period of two months were declassified, and on their satisfaction according the court acts of November 2021 and January 2022.

According to Manukyan, these motions contained internal observation of Andranik Piloyan for a period of 2 months, reasons of the OIM that by carrying out the event, various properties in the balance sheet of the Ministry of Emergency Situations with a total value of 5 million drams, subject to exploitation, could be acquired, wasted and or data justifying the information about being embezzled, as well as receiving a bribe of 500 thousand to 1 million 500 thousand drams for hiring employees in units under the Ministry of Emergency Situations or transferring employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations from one unit to another.

The lawyer said: “It has become clear that the competent authority did not specifically or objectively justify what was the purpose of carrying out a 2-month internal inspection of Piloyan, that it became necessary to carry out a 2-month internal inspection against Andranik Piloyan and what circumstances the competent authority expected to find out. It was not clear whether Andranik Piloyan is suspected of committing a serious crime or a minor crime.

According to his claim, the competent authority illegally interfered with Andranik Piloyan’s right to privacy and other forms of communication and privacy, therefore the results of the mentioned OIM could not be the basis for the execution of the evidentiary action.

Manukyan interceded to recognize the results of the internal inspection of Andranik Piloyan, which are an extra-procedural document, as well as the records of the inspection of the mentioned operative-investigative measures as inadmissible evidence in this criminal case.

Defendant Ashot Hakobyan’s defense attorney Hrant Karapetyan also filed a petition regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence.

He said that the factual data obtained during the internal inspection of the OIM were obtained with significant violations, so they cannot be used as the basis of the accusation.

In 2021, Colonel Petrosyan, the Head of the Directorate of Economic Security and Countering Corruption of the National Security Service, filed a motion to the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan with request to allow to monitor Ashot Hakobyan’s phone calls for a period of 2 months. The court granted that motion.

The defender petitioned to recognize the evidence obtained on the basis of the decision to grant the petition for obtaining permission to monitor telephone conversations on 25 November, 2021 as inadmissible, to recognize the evidence obtained on the basis of the decision to grant the petition for obtaining permission to monitor telephone conversations on 25 January, 2022 inadmissible, to recognize the evidence obtained on the basis of the decision to satisfy the petition for obtaining permission to conduct operational-investigative measures, internal inspection of 29 November, 2021, inadmissible, on 25 January, 2022 on the basis of the decision to grant the petition for obtaining permission to carry out the OIM, to recognize the evidence obtained as inadmissible.

Public Prosecutor Koryun Serobyan said that the submitted motions were subject to rejection, the obtained evidence was admissible, relevant and could not be declared inadmissible.

According to Serobyan, it was mentioned in the petition about the gravity of the crimes that it was abstract, the degree of knowledge was not mentioned, he emphasized the decisions of the court, where it was said in the case of Andranik Piloyan that the latter is suspected of committing the acts provided for in the mentioned articles.

“The acquisition of evidence and its evaluation must be carried out according to the law that was in force at the time of obtaining it, of course, it is a golden rule, but in any case, we should also record that in the course of operative-investigative activities, it was clearly stipulated that the evidence of OIM could be used for identifying, detecting and other purposes of crimes. I think this is of great importance,” the prosecutor said.

He added that it is necessary to distinguish between the legality verification of the procedure for obtaining evidence and the procedures for verifying the legality of the court decision granting permission to obtain that evidence.

Mariam Shahnazaryan