On January 20, 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 General Prosecutor’s Office’s motions to initiate criminal prosecution against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and consent to her deprivation of liberty. Within the same case, charges were also brought against lawyer Erik Aleksanyan 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 Aleksanyan’s assistant Tamara Petrosyan within this case.

According to the charges, the judge issued an obviously unjust judicial act and abused official powers. She satisfied 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, the session started half an hour late due to the court being occupied with another session. Today, defendant Erik Aleksanyan was supposed to deliver his closing speech, but the presiding judge announced in advance that another session was scheduled for 14:00, after which Aleksanyan declared it would be more appropriate for his defender to deliver the speech at this session, while he would speak at the next one, given the large volume.

We remind that at the previous session, public prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan delivered his closing speech.

At the beginning of the session, defendant Tamara Petrosyan’s defender Garik Galikyan delivered his defense speech, followed by defendant Erik Aleksanyan’s defender Anna Mantashyan.

In his speech, addressing the alleged actions attributed to his client, Garik Galikyan noted that according to the prosecution, Tamara Petrosyan went down and took the case from the office at that time, but the interrogated witnesses stated that Petrosyan did not go down to the office, and one witness also stated they never saw her during that time.

The defender also addressed the reassignment process: “We have discussed many times, it says Tamara Petrosyan didn’t return the case after reassignment – what does it mean didn’t return the case? I even noted with some sarcasm – what does it mean didn’t return, did she put it under herself and sit on it? The case was reassigned to another judge, three days later Arusyak Aleksanyan made a decision – well, that judge to whom it was reassigned, if a motion to discuss preventive measure was assigned to them, doesn’t a question arise – where is that assigned or reassigned case? Moreover, in the case materials, there was a document where the acting president of the court had sent a letter to the investigator, clearly stating they had a conversation with an office employee who said they might have forgotten about the reassignment sheet due to work overload.”

The defense side cannot understand what exceeding of authority could be discussed regarding Tamara Petrosyan. According to the lawyer, such an accusation has not been substantiated by any factual data in the case, and the public prosecutor in his closing speech addressed only 2-3 points, which do not substantiate Petrosyan’s guilt and do not give rise to the presence of corpus delicti.

“I believe Tamara Petrosyan’s guilt in the actions attributed to her is not proven, and the court should issue an acquittal verdict regarding her,” concluded Garik Galikyan.

Defendant Erik Aleksanyan’s defender Anna Mantashyan stated in her closing speech that filing a motion in Sergey Grigoryan’s case stemmed from Erik Aleksanyan’s procedural right as a defender, and it is also a lawyer’s duty towards their client. Moreover, according to the defender, the motion submitted to court by Aleksanyan cannot constitute assistance in abusing or exceeding authority because the motion still had to be assigned to Arusyak Aleksanyan according to established procedure.

“During the trial, the examined evidence did not confirm even one factual piece of data that Erik Aleksanyan was aware of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s alleged criminal intent,” she said.

The defender noted that both motions to cancel the detention applied to Sergey Grigoryan and replace it with bail were not submitted simultaneously but on different days, and these motions were not identical in content.

She stated that Erik Aleksanyan did not try to submit several motions to court simultaneously, and assistance in implementing Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan’s alleged criminal intent could only be interference with the assignment system, which was not substantiated in any examined evidence.

The defender addressed in her speech the process of motion assignment and reassignment, the answers of interrogated witnesses, evidence examined during the trial, and insisted that none of the actions attributed to her client were substantiated by them.

“The examined evidence not only did not confirm but refuted the factual grounds and legal circumstances of the charges presented in the indictment and brought against Erik Aleksanyan – the court should issue an acquittal verdict regarding him,” concluded Anna Mantashyan.

For more details, see the video.

Mariam Shahnazaryan