The trial of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan, and advocate Erik Aleksanyan continued yesterday, September 26, in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The hearing is presided over by Judge Vahe Dolmazyan.
On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council satisfied the motions of the Prosecutor General’s Office to initiate criminal prosecution against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and to consent to her deprivation of liberty. Within the framework of the same case, advocate Erik Aleksanyan was also charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code, that is, assisting 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 accusation, the judge made an obviously unfair judicial act and abused official powers. She satisfied the motion of Erik Aleksanyan, the defender of Sergey Grigoryan, known by the nickname “Faz” and considered a criminal authority, changed the latter’s preventive measure, and released him from detention for a bail of 2.5 million drams. Sergey Grigoryan is a friend of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s brother, Rustam Aleksanyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at this court session, the defender of the accused Arusyak Aleksanyan stated that, taking into account the issues discussed during the previous court session, they made two inquiries, the answers to which have not yet been received. To supplement the volume of evidence to be examined, the defender asked to postpone the hearings and thus also provide an opportunity to receive answers to the inquiry.
After the previous court session, with the first inquiry, the defense appealed to the chairman of the RA Anti-Corruption Committee, Sasun Khachatryan, taking into account the telephone conversations published by the prosecutor.
The defender noted that the investigation was assigned to the NSS by the decision of the Prosecutor General on October 5, 2022, although according to Part 1 of Article 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this criminal case was subject to investigation in the Anti-Corruption Committee.
They requested to provide data on the investigators working in the Anti-Corruption Committee as of October 5, 2022, within the framework of which it can be substantiated that the private telephone conversations of Arusyak Aleksanyan with some employees of the Anti-Corruption Committee could not be a basis for assigning the investigation of the case to the NSS instead of the Anti-Corruption Committee.
To the presiding judge’s question about the extent to which the defender is familiar with the materials of this criminal case, the latter noted that he is generally familiar, but at the previous court session, a special motion was presented, telephone conversations were published, and the inquiry was made under conditions of not being included in the volume of evidence.
The judge also asked if they could have made the inquiry earlier, to which the defender replied that the examination protocols were published by the public prosecutor at the previous court session, and perhaps it was not included in the evidence before that, so the inquiry is important to substantiate the propriety of the investigative jurisdiction.
The second inquiry was addressed to Judge Manvel Shahverdyan of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction. In the inquiry, the defense requested to answer what preventive measure had been applied to the accused Sergey Grigoryan, and also what decision was made regarding granting permission for Grigoryan to leave the borders of Armenia.
Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan stated regarding the motions that neither of them is substantiated to postpone the criminal case and the court session, and the data obtained through these inquiries cannot have essential significance for the verdict.
Regarding the second motion, the public prosecutor said: “The mentioned judicial act was made on September 20, 2022, and consequently, the assessment of events is subject exclusively to the specified period, about 2 years have passed since then, during these 2 years, any change in procedural situations during court sessions presided over by Manvel Shahverdyan, which led to the adoption of this or that decision, cannot in any way refute or exclude the presence of the incriminated act.”
He noted that regardless of what decision Shahverdyan made and what factual data he took as a basis as a result, they have no connection with this criminal case.
“I expected that before submitting the motion, the defense would try to clarify from the prosecution side whether my observations regarding the propriety of jurisdiction refer to the person of this or that investigator of the Anti-Corruption Committee, to that structure in general, or are certain perceptions by an impartial observer,” he said.
Armen Gevorgyan said that the information obtained through that inquiry cannot confirm any circumstance for making an accusatory verdict in conditions when the defense has withdrawn from the motion presented during the preliminary hearings.
To the judge’s question about how justified the prosecutor’s position is from the point of view of criminal procedure and competition, the prosecutor answered that the defense and prosecution sides have been in equal conditions during the main hearings, but the principle of conscientious use of procedural rights should prevail: “During the preliminary hearings, Mr. Yerem Sargsyan from the defense side also motioned to examine in the main hearings the evidence that was examined by me during the previous court session, during the subsequent court session Mr. Yerem Sargsyan withdrew from that evidence, followed by the presentation of a motion by Mr. Hovsep Sargsyan regarding the admissibility of evidence, which related to the termination of criminal prosecution, which they also subsequently withdrew from.”
The prosecutor emphasized that Arusyak Aleksanyan has had several defenders since January 2023, who could have presented that motion until now: “Why should we try to fill in the tactical ‘omissions’ of the defense side at the expense of the trial? A year and a half was a sufficient period for them to receive additional justifications for their motion much earlier.”
In his speech, the public prosecutor noted that the defense side is trying to obtain a counter-argument that not all investigators of the Anti-Corruption Committee are biased, in conditions when the prosecution side has not presented such an argument.
Andranik Manukyan, another defender of the accused Arusyak Aleksanyan, said regarding the second inquiry: “If we are talking about the fact that Arusyak Aleksanyan, knowing for sure that Sergey Grigoryan is displaying improper criminal procedural behavior, changed the detention applied to the latter for bail, yes, the circumstance that the detention applied to Sergey Grigoryan was also changed by another court with an alternative preventive measure has important evidentiary significance if we interpret the corpus delicti of making an obviously unfair judicial act with this content.”
Regarding the second motion, the court recorded that the defense side did not present such justifications that could have significance for making a verdict, as a decision made in another case cannot become a subject of examination within the framework of this criminal case.
The court satisfied the first motion presented, giving the defense side an opportunity to present the answers received by the inquiry. The presiding judge noted that with that decision, the court does not predetermine that the received data will be accepted as evidence, in case of presenting a corresponding motion, it will become a subject of additional discussion.
According to Iravaban.net, after the court’s decision, the accused Erik Aleksanyan came forward with a motion, which concerned the lifting of the ban on absence chosen as a combined preventive measure against him.
“I have already been under the regime of preventive measures of ban on absence and bail for 1 year and 8 months, and in my case, in line with my behavior, the application of these two preventive measures has served their purposes. At the same time, I cannot deny the fact that I have already proven this with proper and exemplary behavior. I am ready to be under the bail regime, but I expect from the court at least a temporary lifting of the right to free movement. Article 117 stipulates that the preventive measure can be changed if the conditions of legality change, these conditions cannot be at the same level, they lose their value and relevance, and in my case, I think, it has changed,” said Erik Aleksanyan.
In response to the court’s question, Aleksanyan stated that until the next court session on October 28, he wishes to travel to Georgia for rest purposes, which he will duly notify the court about. He noted that he will not create a situation that will be uncontrollable for the court, to which Judge Vahe Dolmazyan said, “You will find yourself in an awkward position.”
The court satisfied the presented motion, taking into account the behavior displayed by the accused, the fact that the court has once lifted the preventive measure of ban on absence applied to the latter, as well as the circumstance of the evidence already being examined.
The session was postponed, the next one will take place on October 28.
Details are in the videos.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
