On 26 April, the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court presided over by Judge Tigran Davtyan, continued the Court session in the case of the National Nero of Armenia, former Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan and 12 other defendants.
It should be noted that in addition to Andranik Piloyan, Ashot Hakobyan, Vigen Mkrtchyan, Hrachya Yeremyan, Mihrdat Matevosyan, Artur Ohanyan, Ara Yaghjyan, Gor Hambardzumyan, Artak Beibutyan, Tatul Gevorgyan, Tigran Gasparyan, Gagik Poghosyan and Vigen Grigoryan (arrested) were also charged.
According to Iravaban.net, two more defendants were questioned at the court session in this case.
Vigen Mkrtchyan was the first to be interrogated/ He stated that he is guilty of the charges presented to him, in particular, bribery and robbery, and he regrets for what he did.
He stated that the pre-trial statements are not true, he completely renounces them, and he is ready to tell the whole truth in court. He got acquainted with the Minister of Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan during his service, in June 2018, when the latter was the commander of the 5th Army Corps of the RA Armed Forces, and he was appointed the head of the armor service of the same corps, and had been on good relations with the latter since then.
He left job in March 2021, and joined the RA Ministry of Emergency Situations, first as the deputy head of the equipment and repair base of the rear and logistical support department, then as the head of the same base, where he actually served until March 2022.
On 6 January, 2024, he was released from his position according to personal application. Referring to the episode of bribery, he said that he recognizes himself guilty and regrets for what he did. In relation of Artur Ohanyan, who is accused for the same episode, he mentioned that he has known him since childhood, they studied in the same class, in the same course, and besides, they have family ties.
At the beginning of September 2021, Artur Ohanyan asked him to talk to the Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan, if possible, so that the latter intervenes to reassign Ohanyan, continue his service in the military unit located in Ararat city, or otherwise help him to serve near his place of residence.
According to Vigen Mkrtchyan, Andranik Piloyan and Artur Ohanyan previously performed joint service, and in addition, during the 44-day war, the latter had jointly participated in combat operations. Piloyan told him that he did not work in the RA Armed Forces, and the probability that he would be able to pass there was small, it would be better to help Ohanyan transfer to the Ministry of of Emergency Situations.
After that, he was sent to the Republic of Poland, in the same period Artur Ohanyan and Andranik Piloyan met, and Piloyan offered Ohanyan the position of the commander of the MES fire rescue squad.
“We met with Artur and talked about how he should express gratitude for the favor. I should mention that Andranik Piloyan did not demand anything in return for Artur’s appointment during the conversations he had with me or Arthur, but, in any case, since Arthur’s order was already there, he wanted to be rewarded in some way and to express his gratitude. We discussed and decided that he should buy a gold bar (925 sg) and present it to Andranik Piloyan as an appreciation for Artur’s appointment,” the accused said.
He also stated that Artur transferred the gold bar he bought to him in order to give it to Piloyan. In February 2022, the bar, according to the protocol of the wiretapping examination, was transferred to Piloyan in his car, saying that it was a gratitude for Artur’s appointment to job.
Referring to the robbery episode, the accused said that he recognizes himself guilty and regrets for what he had done. Hrachya Yeremyan called him several times and told that the buildings of the “Gagarin” area should be handed over to the RA State Property Management Committee in the near future. The accused refused, saying that it was not part of his duties, but the latter informed the management, after which he provided trucks several times to carry out the work.
The accused also mentioned that he often met with Hrachya Yeremyan and Andranik Piloyan, he said that he had a “welder” neighbor Armen who can do that work, and the latter said that they did not see any problem for payment. Together with Armen, they went to the “Gagarin” area in a company car, Armen measured all the metal objects to be dismantled, after which they started the dismantling works. He informed both the Minister and Yeremyan about it. “I did not agree with Andranik Piloyan or Hrachya Yeremyan that I should take some money from the sale of these products or that I should give them. I did not expect to earn money at all.”
Vigen Mkrtchyan refused to answer the questions. The judge noted that, taking into account the person’s right to cross-examination, they can listen to the question and then understand the position of the accused, and maybe he wants to answer any specific question.
Andranik Piloyan’s the defense attorney Andranik Manukyan, said that asking questions has a targeted meaning, because the court evaluates the evidence, among other components, also on the basis of its internal conviction. Accordingly, he asked to pay special attention to why or which questions Vigen Mkrtchyan refuses to answer.
The lawyer noticed that the accused was quite “clumsy in reading” and, accordingly, asked the following question: did he type the document himself using the computer or not, and if so, what was the reason for such “clumsy” reading?
The accused did not answer the question, and Varazdat Badalyan, his defender, emphasized again that he has the right not to answer any question.
Andranik Manukyan then was interested in for how many times the accused was interrogated during the preliminary investigation; also the content of at least four of the preliminary statements contradicts the content of the statement given by the accused in court, and what was the reason for refusing these statements? Why, according to the accused, should the court believe him now, when he already proved in his own words that he lied once? Why should the court believe a person who has lied four times?
Mkrtchyan’s lawyer objected to the question, saying: “The accused said his word. You will provide your evaluations in the final speech: which was true and which was false. I think that the court will refer to it in the final judicial act, comparing it with the other factual data available in the case. I believe that the defense attorney does not have the right to ask the court a question at this time.”
In response to the defender’s objection, Manukyan said: “I will ask you not to teach me, especially from the point of view of criminal procedure or criminal law. Mr. Badalyan is aware of how much or to what extent I possess them. I’m not evaluating, I’m expressing my conviction.”
The accused also refused to answer the question that the defense attorney asked about the robbery and other circumstances.
Andranik Piloyan’s defense attorney submitted a petition to publish the pre-trial statements of the accused, which were given in May, June, and September 2022.
The court allowed the publication of the testimonies, in which, according to the points presented by the defense attorney, there are contradictions.
Mkrtchyan stated in his pre-examination testimony regarding the episode of bribery and the hiring of Artur Ohanyan. “When Artur was at Piloyan’s reception, I was not informed about it, at that time I was on a business trip in Poland, I want to say that I could not have any agreement with any official regarding Artur’s issue. As for transferring a gold bar as a bribe, I do not understand what kind of bar it is, I did not take or transfer a gold bar or other valuable item from Artur Ohanyan to any official.
In the pre-examination testimony, the accused said about the dismantling episode that he had nothing to do with the “Gagarin” area, the minister had set a task for him to organize the dismantling and transportation process with his own forces, and to transport the dismantled goods to the MES for the needs of the unit. He himself realized that a legal process is being carried out, he was even told that the properties to be dismantled were not on the balance sheet. He learned about it from Hrachya Yeremyan.
In the pre-trial testimony, the accused stated about the illegal possession and use of the dismantled property. “The Minister’s order referred to the dismantling of the property and not to its demolition, I have fulfilled the order. Being the head of the base, could I have committed embezzlement, if the purpose of dismantling the property was to modify the same property and use it later for the needs of the MES? What information in the criminal proceedings confirms the opposite?
Piloyan’s defense attorney Andranik asked the accused again that he wants to understand if the fabricated statements are false, then what was the motive for it, why did he give a false statement?
Varazdat Badalyan objected, stressing that the question is repeated. “I noticed a progress, that even Mr. Manukyan, speaking about the pre-examination testimony, says that their content is a lie. I would like to remove the question.”
While making statements, a verbal altercation took place between the two defenders, because Andranik Manukyan mentioned Varazdat Badalyan’s uncle in his speech, who was connected with one of the precedent decisions of the Court of Cassation.
Defense attorney Varazdat Badalyan told Manukyan: “I do not understand your personal interest and your desire to turn it into a personal one.”
The court appeased the parties, saying that otherwise it will apply sanctions.
The accused Artur Ohanyan was questioned at the court session. Regarding expressing a position related to the accusation, Ohanyan stated that he recognizes himself guilty, but does not want to express a position, and, exercising his right to remain silent, does not want to testify or answer any questions.
Andranik Piloyan’s defense attorney, asked whether any bribe, or any object was demanded from the accused for hiring him or not, the latter refused to answer that question either.
The Court session was postponed.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
