Today, March 25, the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court continued the trial in the case of Aghvan Hovsepyan, former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, former Deputy of the Supreme Council, and former Prosecutor General. The presiding judge is Tigran Davtyan.

According to Iravaban.net, witness Tigran Antonyan stated that he has no family connection with any of the trial participants and that he has known Aghvan Hovsepyan for a long time. He said he had been engaged in painting and later also in blacksmith work.

The witness stated that he had not been questioned at all regarding the case and did not know why he was invited to court.

When asked by the presiding judge what circumstances related to the case he remembered and what he could report, the witness replied: “I can only say how grateful I am to God that I met such a person; he is a man of high taste, high taste, art! That’s why I’m very grateful to both God and Aghvan Garnikovich; I’ve learned, I’ve learned quite a lot.”

When asked by prosecuting attorney Koryun Serobyan under what circumstances he had met Aghvan Hovsepyan and how long he had known him, the witness said it was “not an eternity,” but he had known him for a long time. He did not provide further details, saying he did not remember.

To the prosecutor’s question about whether he knew Yeremin, the director of the “Ojakh” construction materials network, the witness said yes, and they are in neither good nor bad relations.

In response to a question about performing any service for the construction of Aghvan Hovsepyan’s villa in Byurakan, he noted that he had done so but could not remember specifically what he had done.

“There, for example, I prepared one door for the swimming pool, then at one point I also prepared another door outside. I performed those works in my workshop. There was someone named Mejlum, we measured together,” said witness Tigran Antonyan.

He stated that he remembered the name Arshavir Sargsyan but could not provide other details, as he did not remember, and he discussed the tasks related to construction work with Mejlum.

The prosecutor also asked who transferred the payment for the work, to which the witness replied that it was Mejlum, but there was a case when he did not take money.

• Do you clearly remember that you were not questioned by the investigator?
• It’s like asking me if I went to the police; I didn’t go, what should I say?
• It’s possible that the investigator came to you.
• I remember that I didn’t go.
• Has there been a case where Aghvan Hovsepyan personally paid you?
• I don’t remember, brother.

Aghvan Hovsepyan’s defender, Erik Aleksanyan, asked the witness whether he had a meeting with any official in a private office, to which he replied that this had not happened.

• Can you tell us in what context you’ve interacted with Mr. Hovsepyan that you know about his taste, even calling it high?
• There was an exhibition at the Artists’ House once; I met him there.

The prosecutor motioned to publish the witness’s pre-trial testimony, considering that the latter claimed he had never given testimony and was unaware of the case.

Before presenting it, the public prosecutor showed the witness the protocol composed by the investigator with his signature, which, upon seeing, the witness again did not confirm that it was his signature but said it looked like his signature.

According to his pre-trial testimony, the witness stated that he and Aghvan Hovsepyan were introduced through Yerem, the director of the “Ojakh” construction materials network; he had prepared an entrance door for the latter’s house, which Hovsepyan liked and expressed a desire to have similar doors prepared for his villa. The witness also stated that he received 5 million drams for the work, which was given in cash, in portions.

“Once, Aghvan Hovsepyan personally gave me money, I believe around 150 to 200 thousand drams, but I don’t remember exactly for which work. I performed work at the house from 2007-2008 to 2012-2013.

I believe the area of that villa is approximately 1.5 hectares, on which there were several structures, a greenhouse, a sauna, a swimming pool, artificial ponds,” the witness stated in his testimony.

After the pre-trial testimony was published, he again insisted that it resembled his handwriting but did not remember such a thing happening, saying there were some things from what he heard that did not correspond to reality.

Next, witness Araik Stepanyan was questioned, who stated that he knew Aghvan Hovsepyan as the former Prosecutor General. He noted that he currently works at the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure and is also the chairman of the licensing commission. He stated that he had been asked about technical inspection stations and whether the Davtashen technical inspection station belonged to Aghvan Hovsepyan, but he replied that the licenses were issued in 2007-2008, at a time when he was not working at the ministry at all and had nothing to do with all that.

At today’s hearing, summoned witness Astghik Davtyan stated that in 2012, Narek Hovsepyan participated in the auction sale of lands announced by the Byurakan village municipality.

The witness said that during this time, she recorded the competition process of the commission, and everything was done within the law: “On the day of the auction, Narek Hovsepyan participated, won, and bought the lands.”

The public prosecutor asked the witness questions about the announcement of the auction in the community municipality and its procedure. The latter said that Narek Hovsepyan went with a friend at that time, and before going, she knew that he was Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son.

When asked by defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan whether the witness was familiar with what lands were to be privatized, she replied that she could not say.

• Had you seen the Orgov and Byurakan gorge?
• Yes.
• Is there more soil or cliffs there?
• It’s a gorge with rocks, mostly not soil.
• Clarify for the court, how many people need to participate in an auction for it to take place?
• One, two, depending on how many participants there will be. There could be 10 participants, but 1-2 people.
• If one person participates in the auction?
• I don’t remember if one person can or cannot, but it seems like 2-3 people participated in the auction.
• Now I’m charged with illegally organizing it; did I personally need to do that or not? What did I need it for, can you say?
• No, you haven’t even come to the village municipality at all; I haven’t even seen you.
• Who paid the money?
• Narek Hovsepyan. You didn’t come at all, and then when they say it’s Aghvan Hovsepyan’s case, but it’s not Aghvan Hovsepyan; Narek Hovsepyan is the auction participant, the buyer.

Defender Erik Aleksanyan tried to clarify from the witness whether she had information that Aghvan Hovsepyan had incited, convinced the village mayor of Byurakan to facilitate the implementation of the auction for Narek Hovsepyan. The witness said everything was done according to the law, and she had never seen the village mayor pressured or distressed in this matter.

Due to the court being burdened with another session, the hearing was postponed. The public prosecutor motioned to publish the witness’s pre-trial testimony at the next hearing.

Other witnesses will also be questioned at the next hearing, which will take place on April 16.

For more details, see the videos.

Mariam Shahnazaryan