During Vahagn Vermishyan’s defender Alexander Kochubayev’s closing speech, presiding judge Karen Amiryan said that the speech should be constructed within the logic of a closing statement, to which the defender responded: “Honorable court, perhaps you should tell me what I should talk about, I’ll talk about that right away, honestly I’m concluding the complaints.”

The presiding judge insisted that no new circumstances were presented by the defense, but rather it was a repetition of the position regarding the appeal: “You’re not concluding, but keep in mind that, for example, if the prosecutor had brought an appeal regarding the punishment, it would have been somewhat logical to address all this again, perhaps, but in this case, as I listen to your speech, largely, though the words are naturally different, but you are now emphasizing all circumstances – argument 1, 2, 3, we have heard all this many times, we also have the written version.”

“What I’m talking about is a rebuttal to that document called objection, and some circumstances found in it are new, and besides, if I only address one part, the logic will be lost, and honestly, no matter how much you don’t want it, but this position of the court has a binding nature, because we are talking about a closing speech, we are talking about a trial that has been examined for 5 years,” said Kochubayev.

Judge Mesrop Makyan asked whether the speech and replication in the Court of First Instance are in the same domain, to which Kochubayev responded: no.

The judge said: “Now here too the names are different – response to appeal, closing speech, in your closing speech you are presenting a response to the appeal and, essentially, your appeal. Please note general ideas regarding everything that has been said.”

Details in the video.