On July 11, the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction decided to arrest citizen Liana Harutyunyan for 3 months.

Her advocate Zaruhi Postanjyan made a post on her Facebook page, stating the following: “The latter has higher education and provided translation services for Indian citizens. Initially, Liana Harutyunyan was interrogated as a witness, but later criminal proceedings were initiated against her on charges of aiding illegal migration.”

Liana Harutyunyan has three minor children, the youngest being 8 months old.

As Iravaban.net learns from the “Datalex” judicial information system, Liana Harutyunyan has been charged with assisting Vagharshak Madoyan, rector of the “Anania Shirakatsi” International Relations University of Armenia, and pro-rector Davit Madoyan by contributing to the crime through providing information and removing obstacles, using their official or service powers, together with Indian Republic citizen Gurvinder Kumar and certain “John” and “Ashok” not yet identified in the criminal proceedings, acting with profit-driven motives, by preliminary agreement, as part of a group, complementing each other’s actions to organize the illegal migration of 16 Indian citizens.

The case was assigned to Judge Arshak Matevosyan.

The case materials state that by the decision of the preliminary investigation body dated February 25, 2025, a prohibition on absence was applied as a preventive measure against defendant Liana Harutyunyan. She was properly notified about the hearing scheduled for June 16 but did not appear. As a result, the court applied a procedural sanction against her – compulsory appearance before the proceeding body.

It is noted that during a telephone conversation with defendant Liana Harutyunyan on June 15 at around 19:00, initiated by the court staff, she was again informed about the date and time of the next day’s court hearing, but stated that she would not appear until provided with a new advocate.

On July 8 at 14:30, Liana Harutyunyan did not appear in court as she was not found at her residential address (the door was found locked), and during a telephone conversation with a police officer, the defendant stated that they should not disturb her and she was not going to appear in court.

During a phone call initiated by the court staff, the defendant stated that she had not received a notification about the court hearing scheduled for July 8 at 14:30 and was not aware of the court hearing, to which she was explained that the court had applied a procedural sanction in the form of compulsory appearance before the proceeding body, in which case a notification could not have been sent to her.

The judge’s staff informed the defendant that the relevant police officer had visited her residential address, but the door was found locked, to which defendant Harutyunyan responded that the police had no right to approach her residential address and forcibly bring her to court, adding that she had called the Human Rights Defender. After that, the defendant stated: “You will answer for your illegal steps, I will bring all the dirt to the surface.”

After this response, defendant Liana Harutyunyan was once again explained that she has the status of a defendant in the criminal case and is obliged to appear at court hearings, that one of the defendants in the criminal case is in custody, and in case of her non-appearance, the hearings are repeatedly postponed.

Liana Harutyunyan replied that this did not interest her and she did not have defendant status, adding that they should no longer disturb her. The defendant also stated in her speech that she was doing well not opening the door to the police: “what you have written about me, what you now want to pin on me, you will answer for that.”

The defendant also stated that her advocate was deliberately not appearing at court hearings, and the court had reached a “criminal agreement” with the advocate to convict her for a crime she did not commit, again threatening: “you will answer for disturbing my peace and violating my rights.”

Based on the defendant’s behavior, the court recorded in its decision of July 8 that the defendant’s behavior was aimed both at being outside the view and reach of the proceeding body and at maliciously failing to fulfill the obligations placed on her by the RA Code of Criminal Procedure.

The preventive measure applied against her in the form of prohibition on absence was changed by court decision to a more suitable preventive measure – house arrest.

Moreover, the strictest preventive measure (detention) was not chosen by the court, taking into account that defendant Liana Harutyunyan has in her care a child born on October 2, 2024.

Advocate Zaruhi Postanjyan in her explanations disputed the legality of the preventive measure applied against defendant Liana Harutyunyan in the form of house arrest, adding that the defendant had no intention of not appearing at the court’s summons, and her behavior was not aimed at being outside the view and reach of the proceeding body, as both her place of residence and contact information were known to the court.

The advocate also noted that the defendant’s refusal to let Probation Service employees in was due to the presence of a loose dog in the yard, and after tying it up, they entered.

Defendant Liana Harutyunyan, for her part, stated that she was very dissatisfied with her former advocate, was not informed about her rights, did not discuss any issues with him, adding that the public advocate did not appear at court hearings twice. The defendant also emphasized that she did not receive the notification for the July 8 court hearing, and when the police came to forcibly bring her to court, she told them that she had three minor children, and if she had known about the date and time of the court hearing, she would have asked her husband to stay home and take care of the children so that she could appear in court.

The court recorded that the house arrest applied to defendant Liana Harutyunyan was no longer able to ensure her lawful behavior, therefore the preventive measure applied to her should be replaced with a more suitable preventive measure – detention for a period of 3 months.