On 30 April, the trial in the case of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan and Lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal 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.

Since the term of house arrest chosen as a measure of restraint against the defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan was already ending, the court referred to this issue in this session.

According to Iravaban.net, the Public Prosecutor mentioned that the court, as the body conducting the proceedings, should discuss and resolve the issue of maintaining house arrest or extending its term.

Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney, Andranik Manukyan, disagreeing with the position of Public Prosecutor that detention was the only suitable measure for restraint to ensure proper trial behavior by Arusyak Aleksanyan, noted that the prosecution should cite factual data as to whether Arusyak Aleksanyan has committed any crimes or violation of the applied house arrest measure against her during these 3 months.

“Arusyak Aleksanyan has not shown any inappropriate behavior during the 3 months, in particular there cannot be any hint that Arusyak Aleksanyan tried to illegally interfere with the proof process or commit a new crime, if, however, the court still considers these possibilities to be real, I believe, that these possibilities can be curbed by the application of a more lenient measure of restraint than house arrest or a combination of such measures. We are talking about the combined use of the bail and the ban to miss,” Manukyan said.

According to the defender, house arrest causes inconveniences not only for the accused, but also for the close relatives of the accused, who are unable to host anyone or return to their normal routine. He appealed to change the measure of house arrest applied to the accused with bail and ban of absence.

Defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan mentioned that the US Department of State referred to her imprisonment in the 2023 report. Publishing the report, the accused emphasized that, according to human rights observers, the preliminary detention, which continued throughout the year, was not justified. “The former judge was being held in the women’s only penitentiary alongside inmates she had sentenced, and this could have created a dangerous situation.”

Aleksanyan said that even in her worst dreams she could not imagine that such things could happen to her in Armenia that the US Department of State would mention it, but “we have what we have”.

Referring to the question of the measure of restraint, defendant Erik Aleksanyan mentioned that the concept of suitability of the measure should be made a subject of discussion. He emphasized that the alternative is already a suitable measure in Arusyak Aleksanyan’ case, although the most severe of the alternative measures of restraint was applied to the latter, and the course of 3 months allowed them to prove that the alternative is suitable in the case of Arusyak Aleksanyan to the extent that during those three months there was no inappropriate behavior.

“In this case, the transition from house arrest to the use of an alternative, with lesser type of measure of restraint, within the framework of the discussion of this issue, one should look at its counterbalancing factor. That counterbalancing factor is the proper behavior already demonstrated,” Erik Aleksanyan said.

Erik Aleksanyan’s defender Anna Mantashyan, also joined the position of the representatives of the defense side, stressing that the ban on the absence of an alternative measure of restraint in the combination allows to ensure the proper behavior of Arusyak Aleksanyan, taking into account her person and who she is. She noted the presence of health problems of the accused, according to Mantashyan, changing the measure of restraint will provide an opportunity to solving health problems as well.

After listening to the positions of the participants in the trial, the Court, stated that the measure of restraint can be changed if the conditions of its legality are abolished or changed.

Court decided, to extend the term of house arrest for another 3 months.

Mariam Shahnazaryan

Details in the video.