On September 18, the trial of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan, and advocate Erik Aleksanyan continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The session is presided over by Judge Vahe Dolmazyan.

On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council approved the Prosecutor General’s motions to initiate criminal prosecution and consent to deprive Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan of her liberty. Within the same case, charges were also brought against advocate Erik Aleksanyan under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code, namely, aiding an official in abusing power or official authority or influence conditioned by it, or exceeding authority. Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant, Tamara Petrosyan, was also 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 advocate of Sergey Grigoryan, known by the nickname “Faz” and considered a criminal authority, changed the latter’s preventive measure, and released him from detention on a 2.5 million dram bail. Sergey Grigoryan is a friend of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s brother, Rustam Aleksanyan.

According to Iravaban.net, during this court session, public prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan motioned to examine evidence, which included relevant portions of telephone conversations of defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan, her mother, and several other individuals.

He noted that the examination of this evidence could be essential in reaching a verdict, as the factual data mentioned in the inspection protocol are relevant to the admissibility of all evidence examined in court, related to the propriety of the subject obtaining the evidence.

The advocate of defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan stated that if the motion is granted, they will also motion to switch to a closed regime, considering that the data contains private, personal conversations of Arusyak Aleksanyan. In this regard, the latter referred to parts 2 and 3 of Article 28 and Article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The presiding judge clarified that only relevant sections would be published by the prosecutor, not the entire protocol. To the judge’s question about why the defense assumes that the protocol presented by the prosecutor would contain information that would be grounds for a closed court session, the advocate said they are not informed which part exactly will be published, and generally, inspection protocols contain issues related to the inviolability of private life.

The prosecutor stated that the telephone conversations to be published took place between the Special Investigation Service employees and Arusyak Aleksanyan regarding an invitation to an event organized by the latter, as well as a telephone conversation between Aleksanyan and her mother. He emphasized that there is no personal information.

Arusyak Aleksanyan’s advocate noted that previously, the results of operational-investigative measures were published in a closed regime, and the same principle should be followed in this case as well.

Defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan stated the following on this issue: “These conversations with the Anti-Corruption Committee employees are purely private and personal, they relate to a private event, and even our friendly manner of speaking, addressing each other, my conversation with my mother about the event, I think, should not become a topic of public discussion, therefore, not only my private life is being discussed here, but also that of the persons who had telephone conversations with me.”

Advocate Andranik Manukyan said that the prosecutor’s motion should be rejected, as the relationships between the committee employees and Arusyak Aleksanyan are not yet a legal argument to justify that the Prosecutor General did the right thing when he left the initiated criminal case in the proceedings of the NSS department investigator.

Quoting a part of the Criminal Code norm, Manukyan said that within the framework of this criminal proceeding, the Prosecutor General should have been convinced that the intimate relationships between Arusyak Aleksanyan and the entire staff of the Anti-Corruption Committee led to the criminal proceedings being investigated “impartially.”

“If the intimate connection between the Anti-Corruption Committee employees and Arusyak Aleksanyan was accepted as a basis for expressing distrust in an entire structure, it is also a basis for the Prosecutor General’s Office to appeal indiscriminately all those judicial acts by which Arusyak Aleksanyan satisfied the motion of the Anti-Corruption Committee investigator,” said Manukyan.

The motion was considered substantiated by the court and was granted, while the advocates’ motion to hold the court session behind closed doors was rejected, considering that it has already been stated that there are no issues of a private nature in this information.

The first published was a conversation that took place on July 18, 2022, between Arusyak Aleksanyan and David Kostandyan, Deputy Head of the 2nd Investigation Department of the Anti-Corruption Committee.

Note that the prosecutor indicated the subscriber’s data according to the official website of the Corruption Prevention Commission.

• Hello.
• Hello.
• The Queen of Detention is bothering you.
• You’re calling on an open line, let me remind you.
• Yes, it’s okay. Listen, bro, you’ll receive those motions late anyway, would it be okay if I give them tomorrow?
• It would be too much, dear, whenever you want, give them then, just give them.
• Okay, dear brother, it’s settled, I’ll call in the first half of the day tomorrow.
• Should I call?
• You don’t need to call, it will be ready.
• Okay, but I had advised you something, why aren’t you following it?
• There’s nothing to follow, Queen of Detention, always your humble servant Arusyak Aleksanyan. I’m going to lock everyone up, Kostandyan.

Next, a phone conversation that took place on July 22 between Arusyak Aleksanyan and Garegin Beglaryan, Head of Internal Security of the Anti-Corruption Committee, was published.

• Unintelligible.
• What’s up?
• Unintelligible, dear.
• Normal, you tell me, Beglaryan.
• Are your affairs good?
• Good, good.
• Is your place comfortable?
• Uh-huh.
• Friend, I’ve sent something on WhatsApp, a picture.
• Unintelligible, I don’t have anything, my internet is gone, I don’t know why.
• Yes.
• The WiFi isn’t working either, is it something important?
• Yes, very.
• What is it about?
• If something happens, I’ll tell you, I don’t want to say it like this.
• Wait, let me call you from another number.
• Okay, fine.

In one of the phone conversations, Arusyak Aleksanyan talks with her mother about the persons she plans to invite to the event she is organizing. These individuals are employees of the Anti-Corruption Committee.

The prosecutor published a phone conversation between Arusyak Aleksanyan and Hovhannes Yenokyan, advisor to the chairman of the Anti-Corruption Committee.

• Hello.
• Hello, Mr. General.
• Hello, hello, dear Arusik, dear court.
• How are you?
• Good, dear.
• Already an honorable court.
• Honorable court, how are you, dear?
• Good, good, dear Mr. Yenokyan, how are you?
• Good, good, dear Arusik.
• Dear Mr. Yenokyan, I spoke with Mr. Khachatryan.
• Yes.
• On Sunday at 2 o’clock, we’re gathering at our house to pluck a rabbit.
• Ah, okay, dear, okay Arusik.
• Okay, dear Mr. Yenokyan, you’ll definitely come.
• Definitely, I’m in Batumi now, I’ll be at your house on that day, at that time.

A telephone conversation between Arusyak Aleksanyan and Edgar Poghosyan, head of the first investigation department of the Anti-Corruption Committee, was also presented.

• Hello, Mr. Poghosyan.
• Hello.
• This is Arusyak Aleksanyan, the Queen of Detention.
• Yes, yes.
• How are you?
• Good, how are you?
• Good, dear Mr. Poghosyan.
• Mr. Poghosyan, I spoke with the boss. On Sunday at 2 o’clock, please come to our house.
• Yes.
• Just.
• With great pleasure, dear.
• Okay, okay, dear Mr. Poghosyan.

To the judge’s question about how it is justified that the phone number taken from the website belongs to the same Poghosyan, the prosecutor said that the identification was not done by identifying the addressee’s registration, but primarily based on the content of the telephone conversation, the study of the available official websites of the Special Investigation Service, and then the Anti-Corruption Committee, which justifies that the mentioned person is Edgar Poghosyan.

According to Iravaban.net, among the telephone conversations, there were also records relating to Erik Aleksanyan transferring 200 dollars to Arusyak Aleksanyan’s father.

After the examination of the evidence, Arusyak Aleksanyan made a statement. She said: “I stand by my previously stated sentence. Regarding Mr. Gevorgyan’s question about whether I admit that Mr. Babayan is Mushegh Babayan or the other persons, I’m not Armen Poghosyan to renounce my friends, acquaintances, brothers, yes, those persons are the ones Armen Gevorgyan voiced.

Regarding the 200 dollars given by Erik. I’m already tired of this topic, it’s very unpleasant for me, but I have to, I’m voicing this for the last time. My mother is sick with cancer, and for that illness, all my good friends, including many good friends from the Prosecutor General’s Office, including from the NSS, many people have helped. To present it as a bribe is, at least, excuse me, immoral.”

“I worked in the Investigative Committee for 3 years, you know how much bread I’ve eaten, how many events I’ve participated in, so now in that case, does the Prosecutor General think that the investigators of the Investigative Committee can be impartial?

Is this a trial, is this a courtroom, or is it the studio of the Half-Open Windows TV show, I’m about to say, dear Hrach, I’m not corrupt, I’ve never been, how much longer can this go on?”

The presiding judge interrupted, warning about where they are, comparing the courtroom to such shows is inappropriate, otherwise, a sanction will be applied.

Defendant Erik Aleksanyan also expressed his position regarding the examined evidence, noting that he sees no problem with the publication of the last content: “When I was in isolation, my priority was not the conquest of the right to freedom, but from the beginning, my problem has been that all those false news that were spread initially about Erik Aleksanyan giving a bribe to Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, yes, my priority has been for it to be not only an objective reality but also to become accessible to the public that bribery has no connection to reality and cannot have.”

The prosecutor made a statement saying the following: “In her speech, the female representative with the procedural status of a defendant informs that Armen Poghosyan was her colleague, then she tries to create some negative background, in reality, I don’t even know Armen Poghosyan, the defendant could have spoken about any judge in the same way. A judge working in the same building, under conditions of discrediting her colleague, reserves the moral right to speak about the professional solidarity and harmony of state structures.”

Armen Gevorgyan noted that from the very first days of the trial, he said that this is one of those rare trials where all parties are professional lawyers, from the defendants to the presiding judge, and regretfully recorded that the trial is also distinguished by its unique inexplicability.

The prosecutor called for maintaining correctness, refraining from certain personal issues and other circumstances.

Arusyak Aleksanyan, in turn, said that she did not discredit Armen Poghosyan: “If I say he’s a relative of Artur Poghosyan, his brother, is that discrediting or am I presenting it from a negative point of view, if in your assessment that’s discrediting, it’s your problem.”

The session was postponed, the next court session will take place on September 26.

For more details, see the video.

Mariam Shahnazaryan