On 15 March, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court continued the examination of the claim for compensation for the damage caused to the state by the former Minister of Culture Hasmik Poghosyan, the Head of the Financial, Economic and Accounting Department of the Ministry Staff, Yerjanik Muradyan, and the Head of the Staff, Vardan Barseghyan.  Judge Narine Avagyan presided the session.

The Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate around 25 million AMD 25 million AMD from Hasmik Poghosyan, Vardan Barseghyan and Yerjanik Muradyan in favor of the RA state budget as compensation for the damage caused to the state.

At today’s preliminary hearing, the court was discussing motions to admit and allow evidence. Aghavni Madoyan, the Prosecutor of the Department of State Interests Protection of the Prosecutor General’s Office, presented the list of evidence acceptable to the plaintiff, including the passports of the defendants’ positions.

Yerjanik Muradyan’s representative Anna Avetisyan petitioned to exclude from the list of evidence all evidence in which the Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Culture, Areg Hayrapetyan, head of the responsible department created by the order of the minister, regarding the process of making purchases at the expense of allocations under the “State order for the restoration of monuments” program participates.

“The presented documents are records of the actions carried out during the preliminary investigation, they do not have any significance, therefore, it is not legal to place Hayrapetyan’s statements, the positions expressed during the face-to-face interrogation, in some way higher, more important than the position expressed by my client, for example, in the statements,” the lawyer mentioned, adding that the latter does not have any status in this case, therefore his expressed position cannot have any significant meaning for the case.

Presiding Judge Narine Avagyan reminded that her client claimed during the previous court session that “Areg Hayrapetyan is to blame for all this.” The lawyer confirmed.

“If you continue to insist that Areg Hayrapetyan is the culprit, why don’t you consider the copies of his interrogation relevant for the investigation of this case?” the judge asked.

Anna Avetisyan mentioned that Hayrapetyan was the head of the department overseeing the procurement process, and with his signature, the execution was approved and sent to the treasury.

“I proposed to involve Areg Hayrapetyan as a defendant in the case, because we argue that he is guilty of the damage caused to the state, but the plaintiff side does not want Areg Hayrapetyan to have anything to do with this case based on its managerial powers. In that case, I don’t understand why the claimant refers to the testimony given by him,” the lawyer noted, adding that alleged damage was caused to the state during the procurement process.

Yerjanik Muradyan stated in the court that the list of evidence presented by Aghavni Madoyan is groundless and has no relation to the work of the department he heads. In response to the judge’s question, which specific evidence presented by the plaintiff does Muradyan consider irrelevant or inadmissible and why, the latter answered: “All evidences”.

Hasmik Poghosyan’s representative, Georgi Melikyan, stated in the court that they did not receive the petition of the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the presentation of evidence, therefore, they cannot express a position.

“We presented Hasmik Poghosyan’s actual location and address to the Prosecutor’s Office within the framework of the criminal case. She is not living at the address of Khanjyan Street since February 2020, and the General Prosecutor’s Office is aware of the address in Moscow, the Russian Federation,” the lawyer noted.

Back in December 2021, a search was announced for the latter and detention was chosen as a measure of restraint.

Madoyan said that she does not oversee criminal cases, so she cannot know the address of Hasmik Poghosyan’s actual residence in Moscow.

The court decided to provide Pogosyan’s representatives time to familiarize themselves with the petitions of both the plaintiff and other defendants.

The session was postponed and scheduled for 22 March.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan