The trial of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan, and lawyer Erik Aleksanyan continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The session is presided over by Judge Vahe Dolmazyan.
On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council approved the Prosecutor General’s Office’s motions to initiate criminal prosecution against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and consent to her deprivation of liberty. Within the same case, lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was also charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code – aiding an official in abusing power or official authority or influence derived from it, or exceeding authority. Tamara Petrosyan, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant, was also charged in this case.
According to the charges, the judge issued an obviously unjust judicial act and abused official powers. She granted the motion of Erik Aleksanyan, the defense lawyer of Sergey Grigoryan, known by the nickname “Faz” and considered a criminal authority, changed his preventive measure and released him from detention on a 2.5 million dram bail. Sergey Grigoryan is a friend of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s brother, Rustam Aleksanyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at the previous court session, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defense presented two motions to the court, of which only one was granted. The motion requested the data of investigators working at the Anti-Corruption Committee as of October 5, 2022, which could justify that private phone conversations between Arusyak Aleksanyan and some committee employees, according to the defense, could not serve as grounds for transferring the case investigation from the Anti-Corruption Committee to the NSS.
In response to the inquiry, the data of investigators who worked during that period was presented and published by the defense.
Defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan stated that from the presented list, she had phone conversations with only two people, and had no phone calls or event invitations with the other 18 people. The presiding judge emphasized that during the disclosure of phone conversations, the number of persons was more than 2, to which Aleksanyan responded that she had worked at the Special Investigation Service, but couldn’t say whether these individuals were appointed to the Anti-Corruption Committee as of October 5, 2022.
Before moving to the inadmissibility of evidence phase, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defender Arnold Vardanyan said they had prepared a motion concerning all evidence obtained in the criminal case.
Presiding Judge Vahe Dolmazyan noted that there is a procedural order: evidence was examined during the main hearing phase, their volumes were completed, and now presenting such a motion during the admissibility or inadmissibility phase of already examined evidence does not fall within the established procedure.
The defender stated that there is an immunity-related issue in this case, and within this logic, a need arose to appeal to the Constitutional Court to check the constitutionality of relevant legal provisions. He noted that the issue became subject to discussion at this phase because the inadmissibility of evidence is being discussed now.
Pointing to relevant legislative regulations, the presiding judge said that the immunity issue was also addressed during the discussion of preventive measures and was subject to appeal by the defense. The judge noted that if there is an issue of contesting evidence admissibility, motions can be presented as interconnected, but the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for a procedure to present separate motions.
The defender insisted that the essence of the motion is directly conditioned by the content of evidence, the formulations contained therein, and the legal procedures by which various actions took place, becoming subject to discussion during the evidence examination phase.
Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan made a statement regarding whether to discuss the motion: “I have the impression that the defense is trying in every way to convince that this motion is relevant to this phase. Why is this dialogue happening? There are motions regarding recognizing evidence as inadmissible, let them present them – déjà vu, I must characterize this situation as such, honorable court.
We addressed all these issues during preliminary hearings. At the previous session, when I raised the issue that the defense’s tactical failures should not be compensated at the expense of reasonable trial time, it seems this observation was somewhat misinterpreted by individuals.
…Let them cite even one factual piece of data, legal regulation that allows presenting such a motion at this phase.”
According to Iravaban.net, the court did not allow defender Vardanyan to present the motion. Subsequently, the defender presented a motion regarding the inadmissibility of evidence.
He noted that in this criminal case, criminal prosecution has effectively been carried out against a person holding the position of judge. As a result of investigative actions and operational intelligence measures (OIM), data about the judge was obtained from various websites and family members, which demonstrates that the criminal prosecution began in the period preceding the actual acquisition of evidence.
According to him, this evidence was obtained in violation of legal guarantees, which are also established by international standards. The motion emphasized the importance of procedures for removing and limiting judicial immunity, but noted that these are not regulated in our legislative provisions and there are no distinctions between them.
The defender motioned to recognize as inadmissible the reports, protocols, and OIM results obtained during the period from July 11 to October 17, 2022.
The presiding judge directed several questions regarding the motion, while the prosecutor stated that a similar motion had already been presented on May 4, 2023, regarding recognizing all evidence obtained through OIM results as inadmissible. Gevorgyan noted that the same arguments, justifications, and several precedential decisions that the defender presented now were also brought up at that time.
“Discussions regarding immunity also took place during the consideration of preventive measures, presented by Mr. Yerem Sargsyan. I remind the parties that I addressed the content of the Law on Operational Intelligence Activities when expressing my position, its phased structure, objectives, and I don’t find it expedient to make another substantive reference to them purely in the context that no substantial arguments have been presented with the new motion, even the emphases were the same,” said the prosecutor.
After hearing the positions of the parties, the court decided to reject the presented motion, citing the absence of corresponding arguments, justifications, and new substantial circumstances. At this session, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s other defender, Hovsep Sargsyan, also presented a motion regarding the inadmissibility of evidence. The examination of the motion will continue at the next session due to the end of working hours.
Details in the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
