Today, on September 27, the preliminary court hearing of the case of former Gyumri Mayor Vardan Ghukasyan and 4 other defendants continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Meri Mosinyan.
According to Iravaban.net, public prosecutor Aram Khachatryan, Deputy Prosecutor of Shirak Region, defenders Aramayis Hayrapetyan, Hovhannes Gharakeshishyan, Manuk Melkonyan, and defendants Armen Matevosyan, Gevorg Ghukasyan, Sasha Zakaryan, Spartak Ghukasyan, and Vardan Ghukasyan were present at the court session.
Presiding Judge Meri Mosinyan announced that at the previous court session, evidence was presented by the prosecution, and defender Aramayis Hayrapetyan also presented a number of pieces of evidence, and the public prosecutor requested time to express his position on them.
Addressing the evidence presented by the defense, prosecutor Aram Khachatryan noted regarding the first piece of evidence that it has already been presented and there is no need to re-examine it. He continued to mention other pieces of evidence that are also not subject to examination.
Regarding the evidence in other volumes of the case, Khachatryan stated that no factual data relevant to the accusation has been substantiated, but the presented documents do not represent a certain volume: “So that it doesn’t appear that the prosecution is trying to limit the right of the defense, I don’t object if the court finds that any factual circumstance of the accusation is substantiated or confirmed by the presented evidence, I don’t object to supplementing the volume with it.”
It was incomprehensible to the public prosecutor why evidence regarding political persecution was presented and to which type of evidence it should be classified, saying that none of the charges brought are confirmed by it. He expressed the same position regarding social media links.
The defense side noted that with the statement about political persecution, they are trying to show that the evidence of a “rumor” nature obtained during the preliminary investigation has motives that are important for assessing their credibility and other essential circumstances.
Regarding the links to existing videos, the defender said: “In the video, the political actor, in response to the Prosecutor General’s statement and beyond, targeting a specific person, presents specific demands, and not just presents demands, says please do this, but that this will be as an established fact, and very shortly after, legal processes follow against Vardan Ghukasyan. This picture is subject to inclusion in the volumes of the trial. Whether the court will refute it or not is another matter.”
The presiding judge set the following sequence for examining the evidence: first to examine the written evidence presented by the prosecution, material evidence, then move on to questioning witnesses and hearing the defendants.
Addressing the evidence presented by the defense, which, in the court’s assessment, are procedural materials, the presiding judge recorded that they are not evidence provided for by Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but taking into account that they may be of essential importance for the defense to express a position, the court will discuss these issues after the completion of the examination of evidence.
Judge Meri Mosinyan also announced that laser discs are not evidence either, therefore they are not included in the volume.
According to Iravaban.net, at this court session, except for defendant Spartak Ghukasyan, the other defendants stated that they will testify in court at the appropriate stage.
From the defense side, Aramayis Hayrapetyan came forward with a motion regarding the admissibility of evidence.
According to him, the prosecution has presented as evidence a professional opinion given by the Cadastre Committee, which as an extra-procedural document cannot be used as evidence.
Regarding the document being obtained in accordance with the procedure established by law, the defender noted that assessing the circumstance that this document is the result of a decision made by the investigator, it should be stated that it was not obtained by any procedure provided by law for obtaining another extra-procedural document. The defender motioned to recognize the mentioned professional opinion as inadmissible evidence for use.
Next, the defender motioned to also recognize as inadmissible the acts regarding the violation of land use and preservation given by the Urban Development Technical and Fire Safety bodies.
Regarding the first motion, presiding Judge Meri Mosinyan asked what the authority given to the investigator by the Criminal Procedure Code is for, to which the defender said that it is of an auxiliary nature to the body conducting the proceedings: “The results of a professional examination cannot be a type of evidence, it is not an end in itself, a person has the right to participate in the examination, but there is no procedure for conducting a professional examination.”
Other defenders also joined the motions presented by Aramayis Hayrapetyan.
Public prosecutor Aram Khachatryan said that these motions are not subject to discussion at this stage, they should be rejected and if the court sees the possibility of satisfying them, then the discussions of the motion should be postponed and resolved in the manner prescribed by Article 335.
During the discussion, defendant Vardan Ghukasyan made a statement: “I’m a bit distant from the legal field, but I understand a few things, here we’re talking about numerous cases, but these cases don’t concern the mayor, there are cases there that concern the mayor, which belong to us by property rights, and regarding the rest of the cases, the relevant structures have given explanations, You have dismissed those cases. Now what does the last case have to do with us, when only 30 people work in the urban development department of the municipality, 25 people in the architectural department, and everyone brings their activities, presents them to the mayor, the mayor just signs at the end. I’m making one suggestion, those that concern me and my family, it would be more correct to discuss them.”
The judge said that the evidence presented to the court should be examined to understand which is related to the case and which is not.
The court decided to postpone the examination of the motions presented by defender Hayrapetyan, to address them after exhausting the volume of evidence subject to examination.
The preliminary hearings ended, and the court moved to the main hearing phase.
At the end of the session, Ghukasyan’s son, Spartak Ghukasyan, told the judge: “We can’t leave the country. We have businesses, a thousand problems, the prosecutor has closed it, doesn’t let us go.”
The judge said that it’s not the prosecutor who has closed it, it’s the court that decides the issue of the preventive measure, and in case of consultation with the defender, they can present an appropriate motion.
The public prosecutor was the first to deliver the opening speech.
According to the case materials, Vardan Ghukasyan has been charged on the following grounds:
From November 24, 1999, to October 12, 2012, being the head of the Gyumri urban community, in accordance with Article 37 of the RA Law “On Local Self-Government”, exercising the following mandatory powers in the field of urban development, among others:
He drafted the master plan of the community settlement and the zoning and use scheme of community lands, after coordinating with the authorized state body through the relevant regional governor, within a one-month period,
Submitted it for approval to the community council,
Prepared detailed zoning planning, land management and development projects for separate sections of the community and urban complexes, submitted them for approval to the community council,
Prepared the urban development charter of the community, submitted it for approval to the community council,
Gave architectural and planning assignments to developers, agreed on architectural and construction projects,
Issued construction (demolition) permits in the prescribed manner, formalized construction completion acts, alienated community-owned property through auction in accordance with the master plan of urban development, land zoning and use scheme,
Submitted draft decisions on setting the starting price of alienated property for approval to the council,
In accordance with the procedure established by the community council, made a decision on leasing and reclaiming community-owned property in accordance with the community’s urban development master plan, land zoning and use scheme, as well as lease payments set by the council,
Prevented and suspended unauthorized land seizures and construction, immediately took appropriate actions by his decision and within a one-month period, in the manner prescribed by law, ensured the elimination of their consequences, exercising the following powers delegated by the state in this field: in accordance with the urban development master plan and land zoning and use scheme, only according to the contract signed by him, allocated, reclaimed, leased, and in the manner and cases prescribed by law, alienated state-owned lands located in the community area.
Vardan Ghukasyan is accused of committing acts specified in Part 2 of Article 308, Part 1 of Article 314, and Clause 3 of Part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code adopted in 2003, prohibited under the threat of punishment.
The public prosecutor will continue to present the acts incriminated to Vardan Ghukasyan and other defendants at the next court session.
The next court session in this case will take place on November 15.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
