The judicial hearing in the “March 1” case involving Robert Kocharyan, Seyran Ohanyan, Yuri Khachaturov, and Armen Gevorgyan continued today, February 25, at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, in response to lawyer Aram Orbelyan’s objection about what charges could be discussed when none of the individuals currently hold defendant status, presiding judge Sargis Petrosyan stated that a decision was made on June 26, 2018, to involve the person as a defendant, and no other argument has been presented to date indicating that this procedural status has been terminated.
Continuing with Orbelyan’s objection, lawyer Aram Vardevanyan said: “As a basis for the objection, one can also refer to the position recorded by the honorable court a few sessions ago, when addressing President Kocharyan, emphasizing that he is not viewed as a defendant. This was a public statement made by Judge Sargis Petrosyan himself.”
Aram Orbelyan also informed the court: “The only decision the court can make is to record that there was no charge from the beginning. Mr. Kocharyan was charged with something that never existed in the Republic of Armenia; this is a fundamental issue that we must understand. What action should the court take if someone is charged under Article 548 for some act – such an article does not exist.”
In response to the defense, public prosecutor Hayk Harutyunyan said that during these discussions, the fact that the Constitutional Court made a decision on July 22, 2024, followed by the Court of Cassation’s decision on September 12, 2024, has been ignored. These decisions have provided answers to all questions.
“That is, the answer to the question of whether the case examination can continue is yes, it can continue, because the Constitutional Court’s recognition of the norm as unconstitutional is not an excluding circumstance under the Criminal Code. Does the prosecutor have the right to change the legal assessment of the act under such conditions? Naturally, he does. Therefore, answers to all questions exist. Each time this issue is raised, it simply pursues the intention and purpose of creating an illusion of illegality in this proceeding,” he noted.
Presiding Judge Sargis Petrosyan addressed the issue raised by Robert Kocharyan’s defender Aram Vardevanyan regarding how the court addresses the parties: “You have not had the opportunity to participate in court sessions under my presidency. I simply have a habit of addressing people by their first and last names; I rarely use the term ‘defendant.’ If you had participated, these doubts would have been dispelled.”
During the court session, when discussing the issue of having or not having defendant status, Robert Kocharyan made the following statement: “I simply have to remind the court that even at that time you said if he doesn’t change his qualification, I either have to leave or sit down, and you said, ‘Yes, it’s your right,’ and I moved and sat at the back of the courtroom. I would simply suggest, so as not to create the impression of what in colloquial language is called ‘manipulation,’ let’s just listen to that part, which is recorded.”
The court issued a warning to Kocharyan, stating that during the proceedings, one cannot use terminology that would insult a participant in the proceedings, including the court.
“You should use the Armenian equivalent of that word. The court has addressed you during this period as Robert Kocharyan and defendant Kocharyan,” said Judge Sargis Petrosyan.
This session also discussed the issue of defendant Armen Gevorgyan crossing the borders of the Republic of Armenia.
Regarding the new charge against Seyran Ohanyan, his defender noted before stating his position that Ohanyan is registered in Nor Hachn community of Kotayk region, and incorrect data was indicated in the motion.
“It is a public fact that Seyran Ohanyan is a member of parliament, leader of the ‘Armenia’ faction, and the public prosecutors are hiding the well-known fact of his being a deputy. That is, I now have to prove that Seyran Ohanyan is a member of parliament,” said the defender, presenting data about Seyran Ohanyan being a member of parliament.
During the discussion of the issue, the presiding judge became angry with lawyers Aram Orbelyan and Aram Vardevanyan, asking what they were laughing and rejoicing about.
Orbelyan replied: “About the prosecutor’s ignorance, that he was unaware of Mr. Ohanyan being a member of parliament and recorded that he is a pensioner, instead of recording that he is a member of the National Assembly, faction leader. I’m smiling about that, don’t I have the right to smile?”
– Robert Kocharyan, stand up, what hand gestures were you making? The court reprimands you for demonstrating inappropriate behavior.
– I see an issue of adequacy here. Don’t move, don’t breathe, don’t laugh, don’t smile, what else shouldn’t we do? I suggest that at the next session, we all come wearing masks. I see a serious issue of complexes.
– Your observation has been recorded, sit down.
Karen Mezhlumyan continued to present his motion, saying that the legal assessment of the act attributed to Seyran Ohanyan under the first part of Article 300.1 of the Criminal Code adopted on April 18, 2003, cannot be changed.
Seyran Ohanyan expressed the following position within the framework of the issue under discussion: “I believe that in a certain sense, the issue of court independence and impartiality is being violated here, because just now, when I mentioned interruption, speaking in a high tone towards this or that side of the proceedings, it speaks to the fact that there is a predisposition. I would advise that we be confident among ourselves that the court is showing impartiality on this issue, so that there is an appropriate atmosphere, and each side can calmly present its viewpoint and motions.”
Ohanyan said that immunity is not an end in itself for him, as they have acted for the state, and in parallel, he noted that his position was incorrectly stated in the motion, as he previously held the position of Chief of the General Staff-Minister of Defense, First Deputy Minister, which is important for the case.
At this session, Robert Kocharyan’s defender Aram Vardevanyan presented his position regarding the acts attributed to Kocharyan, while the other defender, Aram Orbelyan, will express his position at the next session due to the end of the working day.
The court addressed the motion presented regarding defendant Armen Gevorgyan. The latter published the content of a letter from the President of PACE. He asked the court to allow him to be absent from Armenia from March 5-8 to participate in the regular session of the PACE committee.
After hearing the positions of the parties, the court decided to satisfy the motion. The next hearing in the case will take place on March 14.
Details in the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
Photos by Hasmik Sargsyan
