On August 30, the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal continued the trial of Vahagn Vermishyan, former chairman of the Urban Development Committee.
The bench, presided over by Judge Karen Amiryan and comprising Judges Armen Hovhannisyan and Mesrop Makyan, commenced proceedings half an hour behind schedule due to the delayed transfer of Vermishyan by law enforcement officers, as reported by Iravaban.net.
Prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan opened the session by addressing several crucial points pertinent to verifying the judicial act’s validity. He specifically refuted claims made by Yerem Sargsyan, counsel for co-defendant John Farkhoyan, regarding alleged illegal and unfounded actions within the case framework.
Mnatsakanyan asserted, “No violations occurred. The superior prosecutor exercised their lawful authority, instructing National Security Service personnel to conduct operations vital to the case, in full compliance with established procedures.”
The prosecutor elaborated, “While it was noted that materials were prepared over a five-month period, despite the statutory ten-day limit, this mischaracterizes the situation. We’re dealing with operational-investigative measures, not mere material preparation. These measures adhere to procedural norms as stipulated in Article 36 of the relevant legislation.”
He further explained that data gathered through these investigative measures were duly reported to the preliminary investigation body, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
Addressing concerns about the admissibility of evidence obtained during the preliminary investigation, Mnatsakanyan emphasized its proper and lawful utilization. He noted that the presentation of such evidence is permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code and has been thoroughly examined and incorporated with other evidentiary materials.
The court then turned to the matter of Vermishyan’s preventive measure – his current house arrest. The prosecution advocated for a three-month extension, citing the intensive scheduling of court sessions and the case’s progression towards resolution. “At this juncture,” Mnatsakanyan argued, “altering the preventive measure would be imprudent.”
Aleksandr Kochubaev, representing Vermishyan, brought attention to his client’s deteriorating health. He informed the court that Vermishyan was recently hospitalized with a suspected stroke, spending one day under medical care without any official supervision.
Kochubaev emphasized Vermishyan’s exemplary conduct: “Upon discharge, Mr. Vermishyan returned home of his own volition and promptly notified the Probation Service. This demonstrates that even without constant supervision, he maintains proper behavior and respects legal obligations.”
The defense petitioned to replace house arrest with bail, coupled with administrative supervision.
This arrangement would prohibit Vermishyan from contacting other case participants, including both defendants and witnesses. Kochubaev stressed the need for his client’s freedom of movement, particularly given his nearly four-year detention period.
To support their position, the defense submitted medical documentation detailing Vermishyan’s health issues, hospitalization, and treatment regimen.
In a personal statement, Vermishyan decried what he termed baseless accusations levied against him since 2020. He highlighted the severe impact on his family, noting frozen bank accounts and the inability to meet essential living expenses.
Vermishyan also mentioned ongoing professional commitments: “I have clients awaiting my release to resume design work. Construction projects are on hold, pending my involvement.”
Following a brief two-minute recess for deliberation, the court ruled to extend Vermishyan’s house arrest for an additional three months, until December 6.
The session was subsequently adjourned, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2.
For a comprehensive visual report, please refer to the accompanying video footage.
Reported by Mariam Shahnazarya
