The trial of Judge Arusyak Alexanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan, and lawyer Erik Alexanyan continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court on December 24. The hearing is presided over by Judge Vahe Dolmazyan.
The Supreme Judicial Council on October 17, 2022, approved the General Prosecutor’s Office’s motions to initiate criminal prosecution and consent to deprivation of liberty against Judge Arusyak Alexanyan. Within the same case, charges were also brought against lawyer Erik Alexanyan under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code, namely, assisting an official in abusing power or official authority or influence conditioned by them, or exceeding authority. Charges were also brought against Arusyak Alexanyan’s assistant Tamara Petrosyan in this case.
According to the charges, the judge made an obviously unjust judicial act and abused official powers. She approved the motion of Erik Alexanyan, the defender 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 Alexanyan’s brother, Rustam Alexanyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at this hearing, Arnold Vardanyan, one of defendant Arusyak Alexanyan’s defenders, presented a motion. The motion was about the court recognizing several operational intelligence measures as inadmissible evidence.
“I don’t have much to say, because I’ve lost count of how many times we’re discussing this same issue. At each court session, the defense brings a new motion challenging the results of operational intelligence measures. They tried to justify these motions with different legislative regulations, at least until now. I’m puzzled why Mr. Vardanyan, or with what logic, is motioning to recognize as inadmissible or limit the use of data obtained through operational intelligence measures,” said prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan.
The court postponed the resolution of the motion.
At this court session, the court addressed Erik Alexanyan’s motion submitted on May 4, 2023, which concerned recognizing evidence obtained during operational intelligence measures (OIM) as inadmissible. The court noted that the resolution of this issue will also be provided during the publication of the final judicial act.
“Mr. Gevorgyan noted that they carried out comprehensive other intelligence measures, external surveillance without using technical means, and so on, yes, they were implemented. And what was discovered as a result of implementing these operational intelligence measures? It was discovered what phone number Arusyak Alexanyan uses and where Arusyak Alexanyan’s office is located, which floor, and so on. Let’s understand, they discovered the phone number, and secondly, the location of the office. What was discovered from this? Was it discovered that Arusyak Alexanyan took a bribe? No. Was it discovered that Arusyak Alexanyan had suspicious conversations with Erik Alexanyan? No,” said defendant Erik Alexanyan.
The court hearing was postponed.
