The trial of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan, and lawyer Erik Aleksanyan continued at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court on December 10, 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 and consent to the detention of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan. In the same case, lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was also charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code for assisting an official in abusing power or official authority or influence derived from it or exceeding authority. Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant Tamara Petrosyan was also charged in this case.
According to the charges, the judge issued an obviously unfair 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 for 2.5 million drams bail. Sergey Grigoryan is a friend of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s brother, Rustam Aleksanyan.
According to Iravaban.net, this session discussed defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan’s house arrest, as the term expires on December 13.
Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defenders were not present at the session. When presiding Judge Vahe Dolmazyan asked if they knew in advance that the detention period would be discussed and that’s why they didn’t appear, Arusyak Aleksanyan said they had no such intention and she had no objection to discussing this matter without their presence.
Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan stated that the defendant’s preventive measure should be maintained, there are no grounds for changing or eliminating it, and the detention period should be extended for another 3 months.
“The position is based on the combined analysis of the decision made by you on September 10, 2024, its justifications, and subsequent procedural actions. It should be noted that while the defendants have the right to testify and refuse to do so, at this stage they may still wish to do so, although during the main hearings only Tamara Petrosyan provided certain information regarding the factual circumstances of the charges presented to her,” said Gevorgyan.
According to him, the court’s concerns that formed the basis for maintaining and extending the term of the preventive measure against defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan have not been reduced or neutralized.
Defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan stated that before expressing her position on the issue, she needed to request the publication of her defender Arnold Vardanyan’s written position. The presiding judge said the court had no obligation to publish any party’s position.
Addressing the matter of “house arrest” as a preventive measure, the defendant made the following statement:
“After all, I have all types of education – higher education, street education, and even prison education, but my imagination falls short. Even if I had a great desire to be free, what should I do to obstruct or influence participants? For example, Erik Aleksanyan is a professional lawyer – what should I ask him to say or not say, to testify or not? As for Tamara Petrosyan, even the NSS Investigation Department, along with Vazgen Avetisyan who has ‘no connection’ to the case, hasn’t been able to influence her.
They may or may not be offended by me, but how is it that other defendants are free – and I’m not saying they should be arrested – but one defendant has been in detention for 2 years and 2 months already? How is it that two defendants won’t obstruct, but I definitely will?”
“The fear of me being free – what should I do, honorable court? What criminal elements do you see in me that I’m unaware of? Am I going to hit someone, deal drugs, engage in hooliganism?”
In response to the last statement, the presiding judge noted that the Criminal Code provides different provisions for those crimes, and the court’s previous decisions were related to the circumstances of the case.
Continuing her speech, Arusyak Aleksanyan addressed the following: “When this trial is covered by the media, followers constantly ask me one question – they ask if I might have had some previous problem or conflict with Vahe Dolmazyan, and I answer: no, I haven’t.
You may dislike me, my personality may be unacceptable to you, but don’t you think this is all enough already? I’ve been in detention for 2 years and 2 months, deprived of everything.”
It should be noted that the court had received a letter from defender Arnold Vardanyan, stating he wouldn’t attend the session due to work overload, and he had also expressed his position regarding the house arrest as a preventive measure for the defendant.
The presiding judge asked Arusyak Aleksanyan if she could answer how Erik Aleksanyan had assisted her in allegedly exceeding her powers.
Arusyak Aleksanyan said that question should be directed to the prosecution side, adding that she didn’t want to express any position now and would provide an answer in her closing statement.
Defendant Erik Aleksanyan also expressed his position, noting that in the context of law, their “fight” is not with the facts but with the question of the existence of corpus delicti in objective reality.
According to Aleksanyan, the matter of preventive measures should be discussed with attention to the court’s previous judicial act and its justifications.
“I think many people are puzzled about the manifestations and methods of obstruction to investigation, because when we talk about obstructing investigation, everyone gets the impression of the most aggressive method of obstruction, but in this case, the court doesn’t view it in an aggressive context,” he said.
He noted that from the beginning, his and Arusyak Aleksanyan’s positions have been the same – they not only haven’t accepted the charges but also haven’t demonstrated behavior that could create any impression of a conflict of interest.
“No matter how much Arusyak Aleksanyan may have a warm desire to convince me of something or ask me something, my fate is at stake here. Yes, I think about Arusyak Aleksanyan’s fate, but I definitely think more about my own fate. What’s at stake here is not only my fate in terms of the right to freedom but also in terms of continuing to work and engage in my beloved profession in the future.”
Regarding Arusyak Aleksanyan’s house arrest, Erik Aleksanyan stated that the court could apply a lesser type of alternative preventive measure, such as administrative supervision, should inspire confidence in the defendant, and also allow her to fully exercise her right to education.
After hearing the positions of the parties, the court decided to extend the defendant’s house arrest for another 3 months, until March 13, 2025, inclusive.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
Details in the video.
