The trial of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan, and lawyer Erik Aleksanyan continued yesterday, August 23, at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The hearing is presided over by Judge Vahe Dolmazyan.
On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council approved the General Prosecutor’s Office’s motions to initiate criminal proceedings against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and to consent to her deprivation of liberty. Within the same case, lawyer Erik Aleksanyan has also been charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code for aiding an official in abusing power or official authority or influence derived from it, or exceeding authority. Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant, Tamara Petrosyan, has also been charged in this case.
According to the charges, the judge made an obviously unjust judicial act and abused her official powers. She granted the motion of Erik Aleksanyan, the defense lawyer of Sergey Grigoryan, known by the nickname “Faz” and considered a criminal authority, changed his preventive measure, and released him from detention on a bail of 2.5 million drams. 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, at the beginning of the court session, the motion presented by Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defenders at the previous session was discussed. They had requested to summon 4 employees of the NSS Economic Security and Anti-Corruption Department to court for cross-examination.
According to the defense, this interrogation is primarily important for effectively implementing the defense in this case, as the documents compiled by these individuals form the entire basis of the accusation and have been recognized as extra-procedural documents.
After hearing the positions of the parties and considering the legal regulations within the framework of the submitted motion, the court decided to reject the motion.
Defendant Erik Aleksanyan presented a motion to supplement the evidence. He noted that on July 10, 2023, he sent a lawyer’s inquiry to the presidents of the first instance and Appeal Criminal Courts to clarify whether the court president has the right to give verbal demands to judges of the same court, whether he has a supervisory function over them, and whether the court president can verbally request the return of a special review complaint submitted by the defense and assigned to the judge according to the law.
The president of the Appeal Criminal Court, Mkhitar Papoyan, responded that the court president does not have such authority. The president of the first instance court stated in response to the inquiry that the president’s powers are defined by Article 32 of the Constitutional Law “Judicial Code”.
He also noted that a corresponding application was sent to the president of the Court of Appeal, considering that the powers of the presidents of the other two courts are regulated by the same law. He emphasized that the answers to the inquiry are of important significance within the framework of this criminal proceeding and should be recognized as extra-procedural documents.
According to him, during Gagik Poghosyan’s interrogation, a question was also asked about the law, whether the latter had the right to give verbal instructions, to which he “could not make a reference.”
Public prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan said that the motion should be rejected. According to the prosecutor, the interpretation given by any court president regarding Article 32 of the Constitutional Law “Judicial Code” is not applicable within the framework of this case and cannot be used as a basis for the factual circumstances of the charges brought against any of the defendants, as court presidents can give their own interpretations within the scope of this issue.
The judge noted that caution should be exercised when expressing a position on evidence so as not to give the impression that the court has a special attitude towards any evidence examined during the trial of this case, as they are evaluated in combination.
Regarding the motion, presiding Judge Vahe Dolmazyan said that it does not contain information related to the factual circumstances of this case, but includes the positions of two court presidents on the legal norm, therefore rejected the motion.
Erik Aleksanyan’s other motion concerned the attachment of a procedural document to the case materials. In particular, a motion to terminate the criminal prosecution was submitted, which was rejected by the investigator, then a corresponding complaint was submitted and a response was received from the Prosecutor General.
He moved to attach the decision to the case materials, allowing for future references to it and expressing a position in the final speech.
“Within the framework of one proceeding, the prosecutor says that at the same time, the means of committing a crime cannot be considered as a consequence of the crime, but from the limit of the accusation brought by them, it appears that in this case it was considered both a means of committing a crime and a consequence, even conditioned by two consequences,” said Erik Aleksanyan.
After hearing the positions and objections of the parties, the court decided to satisfy the presented motion and attach the mentioned decision to the case materials for carrying out the remaining procedural actions arising from it.
Next, prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan presented a motion. One of the presented documents contains the record of the evidentiary action, the other is an inquiry addressed to the head of the investigative department of the Nubarashen administrative district, which refers to the motion submitted by defendant Erik Aleksanyan in 2022. Through the inquiry, the public prosecutor tried to clarify whether the motion was registered in the investigative department on September 20, how it was done, and also requested to provide the chronology of the transfer.
According to the prosecutor, the presented document substantiates the description of the accusation, which, among other things, incriminates Erik Aleksanyan for making such records in the motion submitted to the court on September 17, 2022, as if a motion to conduct confrontations was submitted to the body conducting the proceedings and received an official response.
Erik Aleksanyan said that he does not agree with the public prosecutor’s claims, as he wrote in the motion that according to the received information, there is no need for confrontation.
The court satisfied the presented motion and decided to recognize the presented documents as evidence as extra-procedural documents, taking into account the regulations provided by Article 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The session was adjourned.
The public prosecutor’s other motion will be presented at the next court session. Arusyak Aleksanyan noted that her other defenders, Hovsep Sargsyan and Andranik Manukyan, should also be present at the discussion of the motion.
The next court hearing will take place on September 18.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
