On 14 April, the trial in the case of Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan, her assistant Tamara Petrosyan and Lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was continued in the Anti-Corruption Court.
On 17 October, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Council approved the petitions of the General Prosecutor’s Office regarding the initiation of criminal prosecution against Judge Arusyak Aleksanyan and provided consent to deprivation of liberty. Within the framework of the same case, the lawyer Erik Aleksanyan was also charged under Article 46-441 of the Criminal Code, that is, he assisted an official in abusing office or official powers or the influence caused by them or exceeding the powers. In the framework of this case, Arusyak Aleksanyan’s assistant Tamara Petrosyan was also charged.
The defendants do not accept the charges against them.
According to Iravaban.net, the Presiding Judge Vahe Dolmazyan announced that the issue of extending the term of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s measure of restraint should become a subject of discussion.
The court tried to address this issue during the session, on 7 April, but the defendant’s lawyers strongly opposed it, stating that addressing the issue 11 days before the expiration of the detention period is not acceptable. The lawyers mentioned that before the session scheduled for 14 April, one more session can be scheduled and the issue discussed. The session was scheduled for 12 April, only Yerem Sargsyan appeared at the session from Arusyak Aleksanyan’s 5 defenders. Arusyak Aleksanyan did not attend the session due to her health issues.
“We should discuss this issue at today’s court session,” judge Dolmazyan said.
Andranik Manukyan, the defense attorney of Arusyak Aleksanyan, asked the Presiding Judge to clarify by which norms he is guided when changing the issues to be discussed during the preliminary hearings. “If the court cannot, and I strongly believe, will not be able to refer to such a procedural article, then I ask you to give me a reasonable time to submit a challenge petition to you.”
Before the expiration of the term, the court is obliged to discuss the question of whether to continue the detention or not. According to Vahe Dolmazyan, the judge himself decides when to make the issue a subject of discussion, because there is no imperative norm that limits the court when changing the issues to be discussed during the trial.
Andranik Manukyan countered that the judge should perform such actions as are provided by RA legislation and called the court’s explanation groundless. The lawyer noted that the judge’s actions are not legal.
“Once again, you reaffirm the firm belief of Arusyak Aleksanyan’s defenders that you are not an impartial court in this case. You have set one goal before yourself: to keep Arusyak Aleksanyan in custody as long as possible by any possible means, despite the fact that when assuming the high position of a judge, you swore to fulfill your powers in accordance with the Constitution and laws. The combination of all this brings me to the conviction that it is necessary to submit a petition of challenge against you,” Andranik Manukyan noted and asked to postpone the court session in order to present the petition of challenge in written form.
Anticipating the judge’s question as to why the motion was not prepared earlier, the lawyer stated that he had naively hoped that the Presiding Judge would refrain from discussing the issue of detention in a manner not provided for by law.
The Presiding Judge rejected the defender’s motion and assessed it as an abuse of rights. Vahe Dolmazyan decided to limit the exercise of the right to present a motion for challenge. Andranik Manukyan tried to make a statement, but the judge mentioned that he can make it at the end of the court session. Defendant Arusyak Aleksanyan expressed desire to make a statement after the lawyer,.
She stated that she refuses the services of her lawyer. “Of course the law allows not to reveal the reasons for the refusal, but we have discussed this issue with Mr. Manukyan in advance, it largely depended on your reaction to the issue he raised.”
The court stated that it views this statement of the accused as an attempt to obstruct the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the court imposed a restriction on the right to terminate the powers of the defense and did not accept Arusyak Aleksanyan’s statement to renounce the defense services.
After this decision, Andranik Manukyan announced in the court that the court violates the rights of his client with this decision and offered to return to “the judicial course”.
“I suggest that you review your procedural position in relation to this proceeding, acknowledge that the accused has the right to refuse the defense at any time, without reason, and in that case the judge is obliged to give Arusyak Aleksanyan the opportunity to involve the defense of her choice in this proceeding, or not to have that opportunity in this case, ensure the presence of a public defender for her”, Andranik Manukyan said, adding that he will refrain from expressing any judicial position regarding the extension of the detention period. “Expressing such a position means legitimizing the illegal actions of the court.”
After him, Arusyak Aleksanyan also made a statement in the court. The accused mentioned that the trial is formal in nature and no law applies here.
“Looking into your eyes, I declare that naming this a theater is too soft for this trial, these are actually fights without rules. To tell the truth, perhaps the fragrant cells of the “Abovyan” prison are much more pleasant to me than coming and participating in this trial under your presidency. This is not even a trial, it is an incomprehensible process. Let the prosecutor say, you listen, clap, shut up. Do whatever you want,” she said.
The judge responded to this statement of the accused: “Whether you smell the aroma of a prison or the trial of this case is a matter of your assessment. But as an accused, you have responsibilities and by virtue of them, whether it’s pleasant or unpleasant, you have to participate in the court session.”
The court urged to refrain from making such statements that can be evaluated as contempt of court. Arusyak Aleksanyan stated in response that there is no duty within the proceedings that she has not fulfilled and she has no tendency to show disrespect towards the court. “I myself am the judge by status and I understand very well what comes after what.”
Prosecutor Armen Gevorgyan announced in the court that he believes that the selected measure of restraint should remain unchanged, and its term should be extended for another 3 months. According to him, the grounds for the measure of restraint recorded by the judicial act adopted by the court on 18 January and entered into legal force continue to exist. “In the previous period, there was no such change in the judicial situation, as a result of which it could be discussed that the recorded grounds have decreased or disappeared.”
It should be noted that the other defendants and defense attorneys joined Andranik Manukyan’s decision not to express a position regarding the discussion of the measure of restraint. Only defendant Erik Aleksanyan asked the court to discuss the possibility of replacing detention with house arrest. “House arrest is almost no different from detention. I ask you, within the framework of legal reasonableness, to make the issue of the possibility of house arrest a subject of discussion.”
Vahe Dolmazyan decided to extend the detention period by 2 months, noting that there are grounds for keeping Arusyak Aleksanyan in custody.
The court then proceeded to the question of determining the order of examination of the evidence. The defense proposed to first question the witnesses, then to question the defendants, and finally to turn to the written evidence.
The prosecution proposed to examine the written evidence first.
The court accepted the prosecutor’s proposal and established the following sequence of evidence examination: first the written evidence will be examined and then the witnesses will be questioned. If desired, the defendants will also be interrogated.
The court session was postponed, the motions of the defense side regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence will be considered during the next session.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
