On 2 July 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, the accused Tamara Petrosyan was questioned at this court session.

She told the court that she would testify, but refused to answer any questions. She noted that she knows all of the participants in the trial, Arusyak Aleksanyan was “her judge”, she knew Erik Aleksanyan within the framework of working relations, she knew all the defense attorneys while working in the court.

“In the months of August-September 2022, I worked as an assistant judge in the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of the city of Yerevan specializing in judicial supervision of pre-trial criminal proceedings. On 17 September, among other petitions, I received a written petition regarding Sergey Grigoryan, I received this petition from an office employee.

I received the petition, recorded the time of receipt of the petition in the relevant log, it was 16:01. Actually, I received the petition at 18:01, but since computers do not record the time at 18:01, but at 6:01, I made a technical error due to work load, etc., and I should have noted 18:01, 6:01. I had seen 16:01,” Petrosyan said.

According to her, the petition was received in a properly signed status, signed by Arusyak Aleksanyan. No one from the office staff contacted her after receiving the petition, no request was made to return the petitions to the office.

A decision was made to accept the petition, the session was scheduled for 3 days later, and the examination of the petitions took place at that time. “No one made a demand to me regarding the return of petitions; therefore I did not have such a duty to take any case to the office. I should mention that in addition to Sergey Grigoryan’s case which was not taken to the office, but also, as far as I remember, the other accused was also a subject of discussion, no case was returned to the office because there was no such request.”

The Public Prosecutor asked whether she was aware that Arusyak Aleksanyan wanted to personally examine the submitted petition regarding Sergey Grigoryan. The witness refused to answer the question.

The next question related to the fact that during the period when the said decision was found on her work PC, specifically on 2 September, 2022, it was recorded internally that Arusyak Aleksanyan instructed Shiroyan’s staff to find out about the decision made against Grigoryan, after which the discovery of series of decisions followed on her computer. The Prosecutor asked whether during the whole period Arusyak Aleksanyan instructed to obtain the said decision, Petrosyan did not answer.

When asked by the Public Prosecutor whether she informed Arusyak Aleksanyan about the receipt of the petition and about whom it was, the witness again refused to answer these and other questions.

The defendant’s representative did not ask questions, considering that the accused does not answer the questions, and also stated that would not try to waste the court’s time “uselessly”. The presiding udge Vahe Dolmazyan, said: “The court does not want to comment on your answer, but it has been mentioned many times that you should structure your speech in such a way that the feeling of insult does not arise.”

In response to the judge, the defense attorney said that there was no context in what he had said. The questioning of Tamara Petrosyan ended.

The court will consider the question of the testimony given by the accused Erik Aleksanyan and Arusyak Aleksanyan during the preliminary investigation at the next court session.

The judge reported that 2 applications were received from Arusyak Aleksanyan, one of which refers to visiting one of the notary offices of Kotayk region, and the other to admission to the Academy of Advocates.

Arusyak Aleksanyan asked to be allowed to go to the mentioned notary office in order to issue a power of attorney for the car she owned. She noted that the members of his family are going to Georgia, and for that the consent of the owner of the given car is necessary.

The court decided to allow her to visit the notary’s office, accompanied by police officers, to obtain the relevant power of attorney. Regarding the next application, they informed that there is a note regarding the date of passing the oral exam for admission to the Academy of Advocates, which will take place on 14 August. They asked to be allowed to participate in the exam that day. The presiding judge tried to clarify how the participation in the courses will take place in the future. Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney, said that in this case, permission to participate in the exam is being discussed; the Academy has both face-to-face and remote programs, which will be discussed further.

After receiving answers from Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense attorney regarding the inquiry and the order of conducting classes, the court will continue the examination of the petition.

The session was adjourned. The next court hearing will be held on 10 July.

Mariam Shahnazaryan

Tamara Petrosyan’s photo was not taken during the 2 July court session.