A court hearing was held in the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Karen Amiryan and with the participation of Judges Armen Hovhannisyan and Mesrop Makyan, in the case of former Chairman of the Urban Development Committee Vahagn Vermishyan.

According to Iravaban.net, prosecutor David Aghajanyan was present at this court session. It should be noted that he had been involved in the trial that took place in the Court of First Instance within the framework of this case. During the session, he addressed the appeal presented and the observations made by the defense regarding it.

The prosecutor stated that exhaustive answers had been given to the defense regarding the appeal, and these questions had been subject to examination within the framework of this criminal case.

Contrary to the defense’s assertions that operational intelligence measures had been carried out with violations, he noted that appropriate permissions had been given for them, as a result of which data of important significance for the case had been obtained: “Questions have also been raised about the dating and chronology of court decisions on operational intelligence measures, trying to make them vulnerable. The observations that they are not dated, that the time period is not fixed, do not correspond to reality; the documents in question are present in the case.”

Judge Armen Hovhannisyan said that the defense had mentioned that the OIM decisions had been provided, but not the grounds. When asked whether these had also been provided or not, Aghajanyan said that the relevant OIM materials and sections are present in the case.

Presiding Judge Karen Amiryan also addressed the issue of the legality of obtaining the video footage of the Ramada Hotel episode and operational information, to which the prosecutor noted that the Court of First Instance had also recorded that it was not about the result of an operational inquiry, but about video footage obtained through the hotel’s security measures, technical devices.

“If the party wants to dispute the illegality of taking it, I think it’s groundless, because it was taken by the NSS, that is, what do you want to say, that someone random took it or took it illegally? It was taken through proper procedure, it’s another thing that it was given the form of evidence as a result of subsequent procedural actions, and to identify that it’s specifically the result of OIM as a video, there’s no such thing,” said Aghajanyan.

Regarding Article 308, the prosecutor stated that the case was filed in court with 1 episode under the first part of Article 308, and it was presented in the same part in the speech and appeal: “Although Vahagn Vermishyan is described in several episodes of abuse of official powers, it is considered as 1 episode, taking into account the same time period, the same subject, the performance of the same actions.”

Aghajanyan also addressed the alleged episodes of Vahagn Vermishyan receiving a $5,000 bribe and acquiring European windows. Defendant Vahagn Vermishyan reacted from his seat to the prosecutor’s statements, and despite the court’s reprimand, said: “You can just counter every lie immediately.”

The presiding judge once again emphasized that during the trial, they should refrain from giving qualifications to the statements made by the participants, and that there would be an opportunity to express appropriate positions in the closing speeches.

Continuing his speech, the prosecutor addressed the episode of Gagik Galstyan and Vazgen Poghosyan giving a bribe to Vahagn Vermishyan, the process of submitting a petition for the title of “Honored Builder,” and receiving various construction orders and projects.

“In addition to OIM measures, we have evidence at the level of testimonies, the defendant Vahagn Vermishyan himself, in his preliminary testimony, reported about the presence of this $5,000, that it was mostly given for the title of ‘Honored Builder’.”

Vahagn Vermishyan again countered from his seat, saying: “It’s a lie, my ears can’t stand hearing these falsehoods.”

In addition, he expressed a desire to present a self-recusal to the prosecutor. The presiding judge said that at the beginning of the session, the court had discussed the issue of self-recusal of any of the participants in the proceedings, and there had been no response from the defendant.

Vahagn Vermishyan continued to insist on the following: “From the beginning, he has a personal interest, corruption doesn’t come with horns and a tail, just say some imaginary concrete, which didn’t exist at all. The promotion is present, appointed as district prosecutor, at what expense, because they fabricate such cases, and on that account, they get promoted, receive medals.

The time will come, whoever has received a position on my case, I’m sure, will lose it.”

“Can I leave the hall altogether during his speech, until he finishes, because I can’t physically perceive it,” said Vermishyan and left the courtroom with the court’s permission.

According to the prosecutor, Vazgen Poghosyan stated in his testimony that they approached Vahagn Vermishyan to guide them for the execution of state or private orders. According to OIM results and telephone conversations, the defendants stated that $5,000 was given by Vazgen Galstyan to Gagik Galstyan, and Vermishyan added $3,000 to buy medals in the name of Jim Torosyan and donate them to the museum.

“Vahagn Vermishyan donates the medals in the name of Jim Torosyan to the corresponding museum, after this comes to light, I want to emphasize the contradictory, mutually exclusive testimonies: Vahagn Vermishyan now states that he had not taken it to buy, but had bought it, Gagik Galstyan and Vazgen Poghosyan knew, could not make it acceptable, they gave the $5,000 from their side as an expense incurred. Already the content of the testimony is changing,” said the prosecutor.

Aghajanyan notes that the OIM results prove that the conversations between the defendants in this case are disguised: “If anyone can say that any episode I mentioned is not in the case, let me point out that section, all the formulations, manifestations, testimonies, and names I mentioned are in the case.”

The next court hearing in this case will take place on October 10.

Details are in the videos.

Mariam Shahnazaryan