On 6 June, 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.
According to Iravaban.net, Gagik Poghosyan was questioned in the court, he said that he knew some of the trial participants, but he was not in friendly relations with anyone.
During 2022, he was the Acting President of Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction, on 17 September, the duty was quite difficult due to the receipt of large volumes of petitions.
“Assigning was made electronically by me, one of the motions was signed to Judge Aleksanyan at 5:51 p.m., then, when more motions were being signed, seeing that the judge who always dealt with those issues, Shiroyan, was working in office, I felt that I had made a mistake, that mistake was due to more established practice. I immediately instructed to notify by phone so that the petition is not handed over to the given judge, and if it was handed over, it should be returned,” Poghosyan said.
15 minutes after that, the petition was re-signed, the aforementioned practice was related to the fact that very often the judges were upset, called and said: “This is not mine, why was it assigned, it should have been assigned to someone else?” Re-assignmet was done to avoid such conversations.
“There was a formed practice; however, it seems that it is not really correct, why, because before me, petitions were assigned unevenly. We have lists where, according to the type of petition, it was mentioned how many ands what kind of petitions that the judge had. I have tried to correct that situation little by little, so that there is an equal load,” the witness said.
In response to the Public Prosecutor’s question whether, apart from the fact that all the judges were involved in the duty, was there any other working order for the duty (we are talking about the “Ajapnyak 1” Residence), the witness said that he did not remember any issue that was not discussed with the judges; prior to deciding, he took into account the opinions and wishes of the judges of the given seat. Groups were formed, everyone was on duty if necessary, and there were no extraordinary incidents.
“If I’m not mistaken, there were only two groups, if a judge from one group was absent, a judge from the other group was involved, then it was compensated for by not working on Saturdays or Sundays,” he said.
Petitions were signed to Arusyak Aleksanyan, and there was no dissatisfaction from the latter regarding that procedure.
– Were there any differences regarding the methods of assigning on working and non-working days?
– Yes, on working days it was presented to me, I signed it, an appropriate form was prepared, and it was sent to the sitting judges. On non-working days and hours, this was done electronically.
– Will you explain in more details the procedure of electronic signature?
– The head of the office sent to my an e-mail, a made a an assignment, according to that signature, they sent the corresponding motion.
The relevant employee informed about the issues related to the measures of restraint, there were also cases when there were misunderstandings.
The Public Prosecutor next asked, being the acting president of the court, whether there were any criteria for which petition should be assigned and in which order, by hand or through a program, if by hand, then what the criteria for their separation were.
The witness said that he had already testified about it.
“To tell the truth, the prosecution did not get an answer to my direct question, I apologize for such pretense, but your answer was mostly evasive.” Once again, I ask you to make it clear to the court and to the participants of the trial, based on what criteria you evaluate the motion to use arrest as a measure of restraint and the motion to change the arrest by means of an alternative measure, and why were both signed in the same mode?
Accused Erik Aleksanyan objected to the question, saying that the question has been asked for the 3rd time and the witness has given an answer to the question. “Now notwithstanding whether the answer is desirable for the accuser or it is not desirable, preferable or not preferable, however, the answer has already been given. Mr. Poghosyan mentioned that, from the point of view of that question, the he was not the assessor, but the court was and the answer has already been given. I would like the 3rd question to be removed and ask the next question.”
The Public Prosecutor emphasized that the problem was Poghosyan’s comments and clarifications, and not the interpretation of the legal norm, he said that the answer to the given question was not at all consistent with the questioning he had presented, and in fact the witness did not answer it, that was why he asked the question for the third time with a different wording.
The Public Prosecutor published a letter, which Poghosyan had addressed to the head of the Anti-Corruption Department, Colonel Petrosyan in 2022.
According to that note, after receiving the petition for bail against Sergey Grigoryan in the court, it was addressed to Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan via e-mail, then the court employee informed that the petition for the application of detention as a measure of restraint against Grigoryan was examined by Judge Armen Shiroyan, and wanted to find out if there was a mistake. Upon receiving the mentioned information, he asked to find out whether the petition regarding the use of bail was delivered to Aleksanyan or not, and if it was delivered, to demand it back for re-signing.
That petition was assigned to Judge Shiroyan, his request was immediately transferred by phone to the relevant employee of the office of “Ajapnyak 1” Seat of the Court, who executed it according to his information, but the 2nd signature was not sent to that seat and was not delivered to Judge Shiroyan.
The Public Prosecutor asked the witness:
– Mr. Poghosyan, are you the author of the content of this note or not?
– Of course it is me if I signed it,.
– I would like to ask you to clarify, who was the office employee responsible for sending the electronic signature sheet?
– I already said, it is difficult for me to remember. On non-working days and hours, the office employees were on in turns. One could have been on duty today, the other tomorrow and so on. Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the person on duty that day, but I can describe him, he had come here, and testified as well.
The preliminary testimony of the witness, which was taken in November 2022, was published.
In the preliminary testimony, the witness said that he assigned the motions to judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and sent them back to “Ajapnyak 1” Residence in the same order, electronically, through Maria. After all that, he noticed that the initial detention was examined by judge Armen Shiroyan, he thought that he had mistakenly signed both petitions to Aleksanyan. Calling Maria, he told her to request the two petitions assigned to Arusyak Aleksanyan back from the “Ajapnyak 1” Residence, and to send them again for re-assigning, because there was a mistake.
Regarding the preliminary testimony, the witness said that he was not asked about the second petition; the Public Prosecutor stated that he was asked about the petition regarding Sergey Grigoryan and its return to the office, according to the testimony, Maria reported that only one petition was returned to the office, which there was not Grigoryan’s mediation.
The witness expressed his position regarding all this. “I do not want to argue, I have said and I repeat: when I was informed, I demanded to find out and tell the reason, they told me that it was a very busy day, maybe the assignment was not sent. I insist on my pre-trial testimony.”
Erik Aleksanyan read the regulations regarding the powers of the President of the First Instance Court and the Court of Appeals, where it is not clearly defined that the witness, as the Acting President of the court, had the right and authority to give a verbal instruction to any judge.
Poghosyan answered: “You read there to ensure the natural course of the work, which was my authority.”
Erik Aleksanyan, in response to the witness, stated that “natural course of the work” should issue from the law, in this case there is no legal order, according to which, if the same judge examined the initial arrest, therefore there is also an obligation to discuss alternative measures of restraint by that same judge related the motions. “Now, if there is no such legal order, and natural course of the work is derived from the law itself, in this case, how do you fit your verbal assignment, sorry for my expression, into the framework of ensuring natural course of the work?”
The answer to the question was already given, it was removed. Accused Arusyak Aleksanyan also asked the witness questions related to the process of assignment.
– You mentioned several times that the issues related to the assignment were agreed with the judges, you also mentioned in your speech that I was not present at the meeting that took place at the “Ajapnyak 1” Residence, including that you mentioned in your speech that you talk to me only for 2 times. Please clarify when and in what format exactly did you discuss with me the issues related to the assigning?
– The Union of Judges convenes meetings several times in a year, and at these meetings, as a rule, some of the judges are absent, but any decision made by the Union is binding for everyone. On the day, when the matter was discussed, the majority of judges, except perhaps only you, were not present. Do you think that I should have discussed the issue with you once more? I discussed everyone’s opinions; they told me that they express your opinion here as well.
– That is to say, Shiroyan Armen, who was present, said: does Arusyak Aleksanyan think so too?
– They said: Mr. Poghosyan, before your arrival we discussed and we have proposals, with whom exactly did they discuss, do you think that I should have asked, ‘did you discuss with Arusyak’?
The judge presiding over the session told the accused Erik Aleksanyan that no matter what impression he has regarding this court session, he should not openly express his feelings and emotions.
In response to the judge, Aleksanyan emphasized that the judge was constantly looking for an opportunity to reprimand him, to interrupt the speech, to raise the question. He added that he could discuss any issue with the participants of the trial from the point of view of regulation of their further actions, there could be no problems related to it.
The judge emphasized that regarding Erik Aleksanyan’s personality and those circumstances, the court is obliged to ensure the order of the court session, and the latter, as an accused, is also obliged to observe that order. The session was adjourned.
Details in the videos.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
