Iravaban.net has already addressed the activities of the Anti-Corruption Committee chairman selection competition council and the possible interconnections between its members in its previous two investigative publications on this topic. The first publication presented that council chairman Karen Tumanyan, HCA Vanadzor office legal department coordinator Ani Chatinyan, and “Union of Informed Citizens” NGO founder Daniel Ioannisyan have a possible interconnection and conflict of interest situation, and also have a common funding source in the form of the Democracy Development Foundation. The second publication presented the questions asked to the candidate by NGO representatives during the interview phase of the competition council, which often went beyond the frameworks established by law.
Iravaban.net, remaining faithful to its mission in covering the anti-corruption struggle, continues to follow the process of selecting and appointing the committee chairman.
The round of selecting the Anti-Corruption Committee chairman is, by all indications, approaching its end. On March 10, the interview phase for selecting candidates for the committee chairman took place, and 3 candidates passed the threshold:
- Arthur Nahapetyan,
- Petros Martirosyan,
- Gevorg Kocharyan.
Five individuals were competing for the vacant position of head of the body investigating corruption offenses. Two of them did not pass the threshold.
At the very beginning of the session, it became known that one of the 6 commission members, HCA Vanadzor office legal department coordinator Ani Chatinyan, would not participate in the interview phase.
“For reasons known to the council, council member Ani Chatinyan is absent. Given that we have a quorum, we can continue the work,” noted council chairman Karen Tumanyan. Later he clarified that she is absent due to a child-related reason.
Although the reason related to the child is completely understandable, a question arises as to why neither Chatinyan nor the HCA Vanadzor office that presented her publicly presented an official statement to the public about Chatinyan’s non-participation in this important phase of the competition. By law, the participation of civil society organizations aims to increase the transparency, accountability, and credibility of the competition. The absence of a civil society organization representative may raise questions from the perspective of full public oversight of the competition, especially considering the observations presented in our previous article about possible interconnections between council members.
The law “On the Anti-Corruption Committee” defines regarding this phase: “…A psychologist, who is engaged by the Commission, may also participate in the interview phase with an advisory vote. During the interview phase, the Commission members evaluate the participant’s work achievements, analytical abilities, behavior in various situations, sense of responsibility, communication skills, the participant’s motivation for being appointed to that position, expectations, and other personal qualities and merits necessary for occupying that position. During the interview, the participant may also be questioned regarding the data of the advisory conclusion on integrity presented by the Corruption Prevention Commission. Questions given to the participant should not have the purpose of checking their legal knowledge.”
- Karen Batikyan approached the podium first.
He has been active in the police, the Investigative Committee, as well as in the prosecutorial system. From May 21, 2017, he received an advocate’s license.
All 5 were asked the same question: what were they doing during the period from September 27 to November 9, 2020? Batikyan reported that he paid money to the Servicemen’s Insurance National Fund from his personal means to support the war, and also made a donation of 20 thousand US dollars on behalf of one of his clients.
Addressing another important episode of his biography, Batikyan revealed what was the reason for leaving the prosecutorial system. According to him, the main reason was personal disagreements with the Prosecutor General. Note that this refers to Gevorg Kostanyan, who held the position of Prosecutor General during that period.
“I had disagreements regarding specific principles. The Prosecutor General did not share them. It was not related to a specific case,” he noted.
We should also note that the Corruption Prevention Commission has given a negative conclusion regarding the integrity of 2 out of 5. Batikyan emphasized this in his speech. The competition council members also stated that they also doubt the truthfulness and cleanliness of the declared incomes, although the CPC did not see a problem there.
Batikyan also stated that he received help from his father and brother to buy an apartment in the Kentron administrative district.
- Artashes Mailyan approached the podium second.
He currently holds the position of senior investigator for especially important cases in the third investigation department of the Anti-Corruption Committee and has never received disciplinary sanctions.
During the 44-day war, he was in Yerevan, in service, and performed his official duties. To the question of whether he was in the detachment formed by former committee chairman Sasun Khachatryan, Mailyan gave a negative answer.
He was also the person conducting the ongoing criminal investigation of the 3rd President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan: “A completely objective, comprehensive preliminary investigation has been carried out on that case, if I were to conduct that same preliminary investigation now, I would do the same actions, would go in the same direction, and I am sure I would have the same result that I have. My approach, my position is very clear, very exhaustive.”
Mailyan has also declared a large amount of cash, and the council members were interested in what the cash was for. He declared that this is how it was necessary at the moment: “I do not insist that what I did is a very good thing. There may come a moment when I also come to the idea that there is no point in keeping cash to that extent, or keeping it to that extent. Over time, life develops, everything changes. We didn’t imagine, did we, 20 years ago, that the phone would determine everything. After 20 years from now, it is possible that cash, as such, will not exist.”
By the way, Iravaban.net’s complete observations of the competition show that it is possible that the CPC has given a negative conclusion regarding integrity for both Batikyan and Mailyan.
https://youtu.be/Umum5udiDGA?si=cK2FdMzVFZwKexy2
- Petros Martirosyan approached the podium third.
He is currently the head of the inspection bodies coordination office of the Prime Minister’s staff. Previously, he worked in the prosecutorial system.
During the 44-day war, he held the position of Syunik marz prosecutor, he cannot say what actions he participated in because there is information containing secrets: “For a total of 54 days I did not come to Yerevan during those days.”
-I can answer Mr. Ioannisyan’s question that I have seen Azerbaijani servicemen.
-I have seen them too, but I have not participated in combat operations.
-The prosecutor’s office had a battalion, had a detachment. I was there. I promise, after the session, we’ll talk, I’ll tell you in more detail.
To the question of why he did not submit an application for participation in the previous competition, Martirosyan stated that he would not have had time to collect the documents, but also that he did not understand in what order the competition should be held. He has been in the prosecutorial system since the age of 24.
Competition council member Daniel Ioannisyan declared after the interview phase that he presented a special opinion regarding Petros Martirosyan’s integrity assessment also because the latter “is in close relations with (is a friend of) a person who called the police who ‘hold the Turkish government’ ‘Turks’ and those who sell morality, and who was previously convicted for robbery, who is also the brother of a close friend of Robert Kocharyan’s family and a person who carried out violence on Mashtots Avenue on March 1, 2008 (confirmed by the court).”
A question was raised about the fact that his friend’s brother has a picture with the 2nd President of the Republic of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, to which he responded: “I know that Alexander Kitesov also has a picture with Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
The council member noted that Arnold Schwarzenegger does not have that much connection with the Armenian political field.
Martirosyan noted that his friend is not Alexander Kitesov, but his brother, Mikael Kitesov, the latter left the Republic of Armenia several years ago and currently lives in the USA: “I know that Alexander has been subjected to criminal liability, but I am not familiar with the details.”
Ioannisyan declared that Mikael Kitesov published a picture on his Facebook page with the inscription “Armenia without Nikol.” He also quoted from his publication: “Every police officer holding Nikol Pashinyan’s government is a separate Turk.” Your friend of 20 years has declared this, what do you say about this?”
Petros Martirosyan noted that they have been in close relations since 2008, his political views have nothing to do with his tenure. According to him, Mikael supported the 2018 events, there are videos.
- Arthur Nahapetyan approached the podium fourth.
He is currently the deputy chairman of the Investigative Committee, previously held the position of a separate judge in the Criminal Court of Appeal implementing the review of judicial acts subject to appeal in cases of corruption crimes. From June to October 2020, he worked in the National Security Service investigative department as the head of one of the departments.
During the 44-day war, he worked at the NSS, carried out his professional functions in a 24-hour regime: “During that time, numerous cases regarding state treason, espionage, desertion, leaving combat positions were investigated in the NSS judicial department.”
To Karen Tumanyan’s question if there is anyone whose word he would do unconditionally, even if it were not legitimate. Nahapetyan declared that there is no such person.
When answering questions, he declared that he does not have a car, he travels by friends’ or his father’s cars. He noted that he is preparing to acquire a car, which is why he has also acquired a parking space.
Nahapetyan declared that he has close, collegial relations with the IC chairman, spoke about the fact that if he becomes the chaiman of the anti-corruption committee, the conflict of interest with IC chairman Arthur Poghosyan will be excluded. He also addressed the fact that his wife works in the National Security Service, emphasizing that this circumstance cannot be constraining either.
The latter was appointed to the position of IC deputy chairman after Argishti Kyaramyan’s dismissal. At the same time, he declared that he and Argishti Kyaramyan have been friends for more than 10 years.
- The 5th and last to approach the podium was Gevorg Kocharyan.
Until recently, he held the position of senior prosecutor in the Department of Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin. He was released from service on February 17, after the completion of the competition for the Prosecutor General’s deputy coordinating the field of functions aimed at confiscating property of illegal origin.
After approaching the podium, Kocharyan declared that his competitor in the aforementioned competition was Edgar Arsenyan, who is one of the competition council members, but he is convinced that this will not affect Arsenyan’s objectivity and impartiality. The council chairman was interested in what connection Kocharyan has with Daniel Ioannisyan, the latter declared that he is seeing him and the other council members for the first time.
Earlier, during the PG deputy competition, Ioannisyan sent a positive recommendation letter to the competition commission. Kocharyan noted that he has never had contact with him, he is grateful for the letter. Ioannisyan confirmed that he is interacting with all 5 for the first time.
The first question related to the 44-day war, regarding which a criminal proceeding had also been initiated. Kocharyan informed the council that September 27, 2020, was his father’s birthday, and when he learned about the war, he immediately went to the military commissariat. He participated in combat operations, and due to health problems, with the appropriate paper, returned to Armenia, which raised questions from the investigator, even to the point of doubting the circumstance of his being in Nagorno-Karabakh.
“I gave an explanation, a decision not to initiate criminal prosecution was made. A conclusion was given by the medical commission that I was not fit for service,” Kocharyan noted.
Aharon Nersisyan was interested in how responsible it is to leave such high-profile cases incomplete, to leave the prosecutorial system after losing in the competition for the Prosecutor General’s deputy coordinating the field of functions aimed at confiscating property of illegal origin.
Kocharyan noted that he has never avoided responsibility, moreover, he participated in the PG deputy competition with his vision and readiness to assume greater responsibility.
“I have come to terms with the results. I do not have any problems with any employee of the prosecutor’s office, including the leadership, as well as with the Prosecutor General. I have had personal contact with him once, in the framework of case discussion. I have deep respect for the Prosecutor General, connected with his principled approach, diligence, and other professional qualities,” he noted.
Edgar Arsenyan also declared that they had a private conversation with Mr. Kocharyan before the competition, both had the conviction that the negative or positive results of the PG deputy competition cannot leave a trace on their relations.
Arsenyan continued: Has Kocharyan ever exercised supervision over a criminal proceeding, has he carried out any action related to implementing an operative investigative measure: “…Apart from giving an instruction and receiving a response in the framework of a case of confiscation of property of illegal origin.”
Gevorg Kocharyan gave a negative answer and emphasized: the legislator has not included such requirements in the requirements presented to the Anti-Corruption Committee chairman: “Although, experience is important.”
The interview phase, which lasted more than 10 hours, ended. After taking a break, the competition council members published their assessments.
The points were distributed as follows:
Karen Batikyan
Edgar Arsenyan – total: 54, integrity: 24,
Aharon Nersisyan – total: 53, integrity: 17,
Karen Tumanyan – total: 52, integrity: 22,
Yeprem Karapetyan – total: 64, integrity: 24,
Daniel Ioannisyan – total: 21, integrity: 3.
Integrity: 90, did not pass the threshold.
Artashes Mailyan
Edgar Arsenyan – total: 58, integrity: 18,
Aharon Nersisyan – total: 42, integrity: 23,
Karen Tumanyan – total: 56, integrity: 25,
Yeprem Karapetyan – total: 67, integrity: 24,
Daniel Ioannisyan – total: 43, integrity: 13.
Integrity: 106, did not pass the threshold.
Petros Martirosyan
Edgar Arsenyan – total: 98, integrity: 38,
Aharon Nersisyan – total: 100, integrity: 40,
Karen Tumanyan – total: 94, integrity: 36,
Yeprem Karapetyan – total: 85, integrity: 36,
Daniel Ioannisyan – total: 16, integrity: 4.
Integrity: 154, passed the threshold (393 points).
Arthur Nahapetyan
Edgar Arsenyan – total: 98, integrity: 38,
Aharon Nersisyan – total: 66, integrity: 29,
Karen Tumanyan – total: 100, integrity: 40,
Yeprem Karapetyan – total: 88, integrity: 37,
Daniel Ioannisyan – total: 87, integrity: 36.
Integrity: 180, passed the threshold (439 points).
Gevorg Kocharyan
Edgar Arsenyan – total: 43, integrity: 22,
Aharon Nersisyan – total: 94, integrity: 39,
Karen Tumanyan – total: 62, integrity: 28,
Yeprem Karapetyan – total: 87, integrity: 37,
Daniel Ioannisyan – total: 93, integrity: 39.
Integrity: 165, passed the threshold (379 points).
Analysis of the Voting Results of the Anti-Corruption Committee Chairman Selection Interview Phase
A detailed study of the voting results reveals a number of systemic problems in the political-legal system, which testify to institutional connections and possible shadow arrangements. My analysis focuses on objective data, revealing specific patterns in the electoral process.
Connected Voting Patterns
Statistical analysis of the voting results shows clear patterns that are difficult to interpret by chance.
Karen Tumanyan’s Asymmetric Voting
The voting of commission chairman Karen Tumanyan stands out with the maximum 100 points given to Arthur Nahapetyan. It is noteworthy that Edgar Arsenyan also gave the highest rating to Nahapetyan – 98 points. Moreover, both gave similarly high ratings to Petros Martirosyan – 94 and 98 points, respectively.
This coincidence takes on special significance when we consider that both gave significantly lower points to Gevorg Kocharyan – Karen Tumanyan: 62, and Edgar Arsenyan: only 43 points. Such an almost identical pattern of voting raises questions about the possible systematic nature of the assessment.
As the chairman of the commission, Tumanyan’s position has a key significance for the entire process. His absolute maximum rating given to Arthur Nahapetyan, combined with the relatively low score given to Gevorg Kocharyan, creates an impression of obvious preference.
Taking into account the work relations of Edgar Arsenyan and Arthur Nahapetyan in the NSS system (Arsenyan as a prosecutor for cases investigated in the NSS in 2016-2018, and Nahapetyan in the NSS investigative department in 2020-2023), such a coincidence of Tumanyan’s and Arsenyan’s assessments creates an impression of a possible systematic approach. This coincidence becomes especially significant when we take into account that as the chairman of the commission, Tumanyan’s points can have an influence on other members.
Edgar Arsenyan’s Asymmetric Voting
Gurgen Arsenyan’s voting shows an obvious conflict of interest. Arsenyan, who competed with Gevorg Kocharyan in the Deputy Prosecutor General elections, has shown a pronounced subjective attitude in the current competition, rating him with only 43 points. At the same time, he rated both Nahapetyan and Martirosyan with 98 points each.
It is noteworthy that there is common work experience in the NSS in the professional biographies of Arsenyan and Nahapetyan (Arsenyan as a prosecutor for cases investigated in the NSS in 2016-2018, and Nahapetyan in the NSS investigative department in 2020-2023). This circumstance, combined with the obvious bias shown towards Gevorg Kocharyan, raises reasonable doubts about the objectivity of the assessment of decisions.
Daniel Ioannisyan’s Polarized Voting
Daniel Ioannisyan’s voting stands out with extraordinary polarization, which cannot be explained by professional assessment criteria alone. He rated Petros Martirosyan with only 16 points (for integrity: 4 points), whereas he gave Gevorg Kocharyan 93, and Arthur Nahapetyan 87 points.
In this regard, the circulating information about the meeting between Ioannisyan and former Investigative Committee chairman Argishti Kyaramyan on February 8 is noteworthy. If the purpose of this meeting was indeed to see Arthur Nahapetyan (who, according to circulating published information, is considered Argishti Kyaramyan’s protégé) in the position of Anti-Corruption Committee chairman, then such a distribution of ratings becomes especially significant. In this context, Ioannisyan’s particularly low rating given to Martirosyan may possibly be interpreted as a conscious strategy to increase the probability of Nahapetyan’s victory.
The Influence of the Institutional Networks
The selection process of the Anti-Corruption Committee chairman reveals a complex network of interconnected interests between various state structures.
NSS and Prosecution Connections
The analysis of the candidates’ biographies shows the existence of close institutional connections between law enforcement bodies. Four out of five candidates have had close connections with the prosecutorial system. Arthur Nahapetyan has directly worked in the NSS, holding the positions of head of the investigative department section, then deputy head of the department in 2020-2023. Edgar Arsenyan, although having worked in the prosecution, held the position of prosecutor for cases investigated in the RA National Security bodies in the RA Prosecutor General’s Office in 2016-2018, that is, he had close professional contact with NSS activities.
These institutional connections not only explain the coincidences of some ratings but also testify to the fact that the anti-corruption struggle in Armenia is still largely dependent on persons operating within the same law enforcement system. This can complicate the fight against systemic corruption, as decision-makers are often connected with their former colleagues and work environment. This may also indicate that despite the introduction of independent competitive procedures, the system is still dominated by the preference for “insiders.”
The Role of Civil Society Representatives
Ani Chatinyan’s absence from the interview phase becomes particularly noteworthy in the context that the involvement of civil society representatives aims to ensure the transparency and accountability of the process. The fact that neither Chatinyan nor the HCA Vanadzor office that presented her presented an official explanation to the public speaks about the incomplete awareness and implementation of important functions of civil society institutions.
Professional Analysis of Ratings
Asymmetry in Integrity Assessment
The analysis of the integrity assessment component shows significant asymmetry. For example, Daniel Ioannisyan gave Petros Martirosyan only 4 points, whereas other members gave an average of 37.5 points. Such significant differences testify to the absence of unified assessment criteria.
It is noteworthy that the possible negative conclusions of the CPC on integrity had a significant impact only in the cases of Batikyan and Mailyan, which shows that the assessment of “integrity” can possibly be applied selectively as a “filter” for certain candidates.
Yeprem Karapetyan’s Balanced Approach
Only Yeprem Karapetyan’s ratings have shown a relatively uniform distribution, without obvious preferences. He gave almost equal points to Nahapetyan and Kocharyan (88 and 87), which testifies to a more objective approach. Such a balanced approach further emphasizes the asymmetry of the ratings of other members.
Conclusions
The analysis of the selection process of the Anti-Corruption Committee chairman reveals a number of systemic problems։
- The results of the selection testify to possible shadow connections between various state structures, which may endanger the independence of the anti-corruption struggle.
- The asymmetric application of assessment criteria calls into question the objectivity of the competition.
- The absence of civil society representatives from the interview phase and/or unbalanced role hinders the provision of transparency and accountability.
The Anti-Corruption Committee, having a need for public trust, should ensure maximum transparency and independence in the process of forming its leadership. Nevertheless, the present analysis shows that despite legislative regulations, old practices still exist in the system, which limit the formation of real meritocracy (merit-based system).
Only through truly independent, competitive, and transparent electoral processes is it possible to ensure effective anti-corruption policy, which will enjoy public trust and contribute to the further development of democratic institutions in Armenia.
Thus, the candidacies of Arthur Nahapetyan, Petros Martirosyan, and Gevorg Kocharyan have been presented for the Government’s approval. One of them will become the 2nd chairman of the Anti-Corruption Committee.
