Today, on September 30, the court hearing in the case of Aghvan Hovsepyan, former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, former Deputy of the Supreme Council, and former Prosecutor General, continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The presiding judge is Tigran Davtyan.

According to Iravaban.net, businessmen Samvel Aleksanyan and Arshavir Sargsyan were interrogated in court today.

According to the accusation, Aghvan Hovsepyan demanded and received a particularly large bribe from Varsham Gharibyan on February 14, 2011, for patronage in service in his favor, and then legalized the particularly large property obtained through criminal means. In addition, on April 10, 2017, Aghvan Hovsepyan, by convincing Vrezh Markosyan, who was in close relations with him, incited him to embezzle particularly large property entrusted to him belonging to Varsham Gharibyan.

At the beginning of the session, Samvel Aleksanyan said that he had to participate in an event at 16:00 and asked to be interrogated first.

He suggested informing the court through questions about what he could. Public prosecutor Koryun Serobyan inquired whether he knows Varsham and Manvel Gharibyan. Aleksanyan noted that he has known both brothers for about 20 years. The witness was also asked if he had ever owned shares in “Yerevan” TV company. Aleksanyan gave a negative answer: “I don’t know anything about it.”

The prosecutor noted that Aghvan Hovsepyan declared during one of the court sessions that 30 percent of the TV company belonged to Samvel Aleksanyan, which the latter gifted to him.

“My dear, it wasn’t even in my name for me to gift. What should I have gifted?” noted the witness, to which Koryun Serobyan replied that the investigator also did not find such data.

“I neither owned it nor did anything. Well, if that’s the case, now I’ll gift the airport to someone too,” he noted.

Then Aghvan Hovsepyan began to ask questions to Aleksanyan: “Do you know a person named Bogo? Bogo is a nickname, right?”

The witness noted that he knows a person by that nickname. He said he has been his friend all his life, but he doesn’t know his real name and surname: “If I’m not mistaken, his name is Robert, but they call him Bogo.”

The TV company has always covered the events organized by the “Aparan” compatriotic union, Samvel Aleksanyan also spoke about this in court: “Call Bogo, interrogate him.”

When asked whether “Bogo” had any connection with the TV company or not, Aleksanyan answered that he doesn’t know: “I know he had some connection with the TV studio.”

The defense side requested a break, but after that announced that they had no questions for the witness. Aleksanyan left the courtroom.

It should be noted that at the previous session, Arshavir Sargsyan’s interrogation was postponed, and at this session, the public prosecutor, Aghvan Hovsepyan, and his advocates continued to ask him questions.

Speaking about the construction of hydroelectric power plants and their operation, the witness said that he had consulted with Misak Hovsepyan about it, said that he needed a license for it, and in the morning he learned that it was refused.

“I don’t know who Aghvan Hovsepyan had called, he had said not to give me a license, I told him that too, he said, ‘I did well, I said, yes, I shouldn’t have given you that HEP (hydroelectric power plant – ed.).’ 1 month later, they gave the license to their organization, the rest is proven by examinations that our organization built it – my daughter’s organization, they had taken money on loan, everything was going its own way,” said the witness.

To the question of prosecutor Koryun Serobyan whether Aghvan Hovsepyan had the intention to build a hydroelectric power plant in Byurakan or not, the witness answered that water was flowing through the Byurakan gorge, he himself suggested to Hovsepyan, advised to build a hydroelectric power plant so that Misak Hovsepyan would deal with its operations in the future.

According to him, at that time the residents protested, he went to the community hall with Misak Hovsepyan, he himself presented the situation to the people, but even after that, they did not come to a common denominator: “Misak started, brought in equipment, started construction there, people stood up, protested, blocked the road, as far as I know, it hasn’t been built until now. Then most of the lands in that area were the property of Aghvan Hovsepyan’s family, but the people didn’t allow it, so it wasn’t built.”

• What was the reason they didn’t want a hydroelectric power plant to be built?
• There was a problem with the village’s irrigation water, and the second was the factor of Aghvan Hovsepyan’s person: at that time, people didn’t look kindly on officials being allowed everything.
• So, did the residents of Byurakan know that it was Aghvan Hovsepyan’s territory?
• Yes, how could they not know, they knew that Misak is Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son. He has done a lot for that village, helped in many issues, solved water issues. He has done a lot for that community.
• Was that area previously pasture?
• It was dry, mountains on that side, mountains on this side, we thought we would close it, bring beautiful animals and let them loose, it’s wilderness after all, no one needs that road or that field of trees, as soon as you go to touch it, or you mention Aghvan Hovsepyan’s name there, suddenly everyone needs it.

During the interrogation, Aghvan Hovsepyan’s advocate, Erik Aleksanyan, made a statement, noting that in the case when any of the witnesses provides data that is not essential for the case or not relevant to the question, the court should not allow it to be declared: “I would ask the court henceforth not to allow the witness to express assumptions or opinions on this or that issue, so that later articles with good headlines don’t go to the press – Arshavir Sargsyan reported this way, reported that way, so that we don’t mislead the public in this regard.”

The prosecutor also made a statement regarding the witness’s testimony, he said that the court, the prosecution, and defense sides have the opportunity to evaluate the information provided by the witness, to analyze it: “To make a statement before the witness’s interrogation is finished, that it will be some kind of headline, I think by this we are restraining the witness from providing the information he knows in the future.”

To the prosecutor’s other question whether the community leader could have been constrained by Aghvan Hovsepyan, Arshavir Sargsyan said he could not have been constrained, because the relations between them were warm, they spoke to each other with respect, not out of fear.

• Do you remember in which year the meeting with Aghvan Hovsepyan in Moscow took place?
• In 2016 or 2017.
• Who was the third person during the meeting?
• He was my very close friend, with whom I had been friends, he was from Belarus, but lived in Moscow, I introduced him to Aghvan Hovsepyan. I had been friends with him since 1998, later he came to Armenia, I was at his house.

The witness noted that his friend came to Armenia in 2015, they went to Meghri together, he showed what he was doing, after Aghvan Hovsepyan’s father’s death, he couldn’t come to Armenia, he sent his friend: “He returned from Armenia, changed in a different way, said everything is very bad, I ran away from Armenia, they cheated.”

The witness also stated that many have offered him to engage in joint business activities, but he has answered everyone that his “business partner” is Aghvan Hovsepyan and he has no right to engage in any entrepreneurial work with anyone else besides him.

• Do you have information that any of Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons knows Robert Nazaryan, Aram Harutyunyan, Andranik Manukyan, Hovik Abrahamyan, or has talked to them, solved some problems related to business activities?
• I don’t think such a thing could happen, because the names you are giving, those people were very inaccessible, and it wasn’t that easy to meet those people, they were very busy by the nature of their work, probably not, such a thing couldn’t happen. Of course, after calling, we could go, discuss some issues.
• Who would you call?
• Well, Aghvan Hovsepyan would have to call for us to go, how else can you call the head of the Government or another official, say I want to come, meet with you, I have business, I have business.
• Has he ever told you such a thing?

Aghvan Hovsepyan’s advocate, Yerem Sargsyan, objected to the question, noting that the witness has already answered it.

The witness also stated that they paid taxes from the income received during the joint business activities, and now the only concern is the “fate” of the hydroelectric power plant built by him: “That complaint will go to the end, as long as I live, until that HEP (hydroelectric power plant – ed.) is mine.”

To the public prosecutor’s question whether Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons were engaged in any other activities besides hydroelectric power plants, Arshavir Sargsyan said that Misak was engaged in the drug business, winning tenders from the Ministry of Health, he would come and ask for advice from him, also mentioned that he had a dental clinic, he himself had gone there.

About Aghvan Hovsepyan’s other sons, he said: “Narek wasn’t engaged in anything at all, he wasn’t interested, he complained, said ‘I don’t like this country, I don’t want to, I don’t need anything,’ while the youngest son had very interesting ideas, he worked, did everything normally.”

From the defense side, Yerem Sargsyan asked if he had dealt with auction organization issues, the witness said he hadn’t dealt with that, and to the other question about what work Varazdat Grigoryan, Sahak Tadevosyan, Lyudvig Tadevosyan from Byurakan community had done during that time, the witness said he doesn’t remember many people.

When asked if he considers it possible that Aghvan Hovsepyan forced those same residents to participate in the auction, Arshavir Sargsyan said: “If I don’t know something, how can I say? There was a Hrach there, who was supposed to organize as needed.”

About the joint business activity, Sargsyan stated the following: “The business was ours, and I have never received a reprimand for it, we haven’t argued with each other, there hasn’t been any problem, I haven’t even said that I made a mistake. Every 3 months I would bring the papers from the accounting department, present them, the driver would put them in the trunk, and he would say ‘Arshavir, there’s no need for anything, I trust you 100 percent, there’s no issue.'”

Yerem Sargsyan asked the witness:

• Was Misak your employee?
• He wasn’t my employee, he was my friend’s son, he was a family member.
• Misak, who had come with you, was he doing business?
• What does it mean he was doing business, we were doing construction for the general family business.
• In the previous session, when the court asked you if there was enmity with Mr. Hovsepyan or not, if I’m not mistaken, you said there wasn’t.
• I’m saying it again.
• You said a little while ago that that hydroelectric power plant should have been yours.
• It was mine, as long as I breathe, I will complain through all instances within the bounds of the law to return that HEP (hydroelectric power plant – ed.) to me.

Next, the witness was questioned by advocate Erik Aleksanyan.

• Once again, will you tell the court what was the reason that Aghvan Hovsepyan didn’t want these businesses to be in his name?
• The position.
• At the same time, you stated that Mr. Hovsepyan doesn’t want society to know that he’s engaged in business. A little while ago you stated: I received numerous offers to do business, I refused everyone, saying my only partner is Aghvan Hovsepyan, everyone knew about it. How does it turn out that you have declared to the whole world that you are partners with Aghvan Hovsepyan and you refuse everyone’s offers?
• First, perhaps the difference is that you are a lawyer by profession, I’m a geologist. I’m saying again, of course, they shouldn’t have known that Hovsepyan was engaged in business, but there was a narrow circle of friends who knew that I’m Aghvan Hovsepyan’s friend, that’s why they were coming, offering to do business, otherwise, they wouldn’t come for my beautiful eyes.

After the witness’s interrogation, defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan made a statement, saying what education his sons had received, what activities they were engaged in, countering the information provided by the witness that they couldn’t independently engage in entrepreneurial activities.

To the question whether they really couldn’t engage in those businesses, the witness said: “Those kids have had many businesses, but the ones that were my businesses, they had no connection with them, yes, we tried with Misak, you, at your request, involved Misak in the HEP business, and I got a big problem on my head.”

According to Iravaban.net, at the end of the session, public prosecutor Koryun Serobyan filed a motion to publish the witness’s preliminary investigation testimonies, as there are contradictions with several parts of this testimony and those.

Due to the court being burdened with another session, the hearing was postponed. At the next session, the relevant parts of the testimony will be published, and the interrogation of witnesses will continue.

The next session will take place on October 29.

Details are in the videos.

Mariam Shahnazaryan