On 2 May, the hearing in the case of the former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, former Deputy of the Supreme Soviet, former Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepyan continued in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. Presiding Judge Tigran Davtyan.
According to the indictment, Aghvan Hovsepyan held the positions of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia from 18 March, 2004 to 13 September, 2013, and the Chairman of the RA Investigative Committee from 18 July, 2014 to 11 June, 2018. Being a representative of the government, a high-ranking official, notwithstanding to the ban on engaging in business activities established for persons holding positions, in cooperation with Arshavir Sargsyan, a resident of the city of Yerevan, who was in close relations with him, during the period of 2007-2015 having a joint intention, founded organizations carrying out entrepreneurial activities, as well as participated in the management of organizations carrying out entrepreneurial activities personally and through his sons as proxies, which was connected with providing privileges and advantages to these organizations and sponsoring them in other ways, and illegally participating in entrepreneurial activities as a result, he legalized the particularly large property obtained through criminal means.
In addition, at the beginning of October 2010, on a date not determined by the investigation, Aghvan Hovsepyan, exerting influence with the authority of his position, persuaded Hrachya Avagyan, the Head of the Byurakan Community of Aragatsotn marz, to abuse his official authority, and as a result of that act, he legalized large amounts of property obtained through criminal means.
In addition, Aghvan Hovsepyan demanded and received a particularly large bribe on February 14, 2011 for the patronage of Varsham Gharibyan, then legalized the particularly large property obtained through criminal means.
In addition, on 10 April, 2017, Aghvan Hovsepyan persuaded Vrezh Markosyan, who was in a close relationship with him, to waste the particularly large property entrusted to him, belonging to Varsham Gharibyan.
According to Iravaban.net, 4 witnesses were questioned at this Court session.
Robert Nazaryan, former Chairman of RA Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC), was the first of the subpoenaed witnesses to be interrogated. He stated that he does not have a friendly relationship with any of those present, he knows the defendant, and that he got acquainted with the defendant during a general meeting.
Related to 2 the questioning about two hydroelectric power stations (HPS), he mentioned that the pre-investigative body tried to find out whether Aghvan Hovsepyan approached him related to that issue or not, he said that he did not.
The latter’s son, Misak Hovsepyan, and Arshavir, whose last name he did not remember at that moment, visited him: They complained that the issuance of the license was being delayed unnecessarily, and in their presence, he contacted the department heads, trying to understand what the problem was. According to him, there were shortcomings in the presented list; clarifications were given regarding all that.
The witness stated that at that time he held the position of the Chairman of the Public Services Regulatory Commission.
Public Prosecutor Koryun Serobyan asked the following questions to Robert Nazaryan:
– Will you indicate the period in which you held that position, and please indicate whether you were a member of the National Water Council during that period?
– Yes, I was, from 1 July, 2003 to 1 July, 2018.
– Since when have you been a member of the National Water Council?
– I cannot indicate the date, but I was a member of the Council.
– You mentioned that, as far as you remember, the conversation related to the HPS refers to the years 2012, 2013, 2014. Were you a member of the Council at that time?
– I think yes, I do not remember well, because the National Water Council was formed later.
– Who was the Chairman of the National Water Council in those years?
– The Prime Minister.
– Which of the members will you remember?
– As a rule, the Chairman of the Water Management Council was there, the Minister of Nature Protection, there were also people from non-governmental organizations, from the Polytechnic Institute, if I am not mistaken.
He stated that he had got acquainted with Misak Hovsepyan just in relation of that case, the secretary at work said that Misak Hovsepyan was waiting for him, at that moment he did not remember who the latter was, he asked the employee and learned that it was Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son.
To the question of the prosecutor, whether it is possible that he had seen Misak Hovsepyan before that, the witness said that the latter came to him once, and he was alone. During the first meeting, he learned that Misak is Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son.
During the meeting, he said that he aimed to engage in the business of small hydropower plants and asked what documents were needed for that, they brought the list and gave it to Misak.
According to the witness, citizens have always applied with such questions; it was a special day for their reception. He insisted that depending on the situation, if he was busy he might not accept Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son, or he could have accept any other person whom he did not know.
– How did you meet Arshavir Sargsyan, who introduced him?
– Misak introduced me.
– Did Arshavir Sargsyan and Misak Hovsepyan specifically introduce themselves and the activities they carry out?
– They presented that they want to build a power plant.
– What year was it?
– It was approximately from 2012 to 2014. I do not remember exactly.
The Prosecutor stated that there were such data in the case where it was stated that Aghvan Hovsepyan was related to the mentioned incident. The defense objected, saying that there were no such data.
The Public Prosecutor emphasized to justify what he said: “Actually, we have these factual data, of course, it is not in Mr. Nazaryan’s testimony, and I did not say such a thing, so he should not have been surprised. As for the factual data in the case, yes, it is the testimony of the witness, as stated by the respectful side, but the testimony of the witness was not published, the Court did not examine it, but under these conditions, I am giving myself the opportunity to ask this question equally. Is it not legitimate to raise the question without mentioning by whom it was given and with what content that testimony was given? If it is not legal, let the Court decide and remove the issue.”
The representative of the defense side stated that it was not lawful, because they had the right to ask questions arising from the evidence examined during the trial.
The witness again insisted that he had already answered the question; Aghvan Hovsepyan had nothing to do with it.
Arshak Petrosyan was the next of the subpoenaed witnesses to be interrogated . He stated that he was not a relative of any of those in the Courtroom and did not know Aghvan Hovsepyan personally.
According to the witness, in the years 2001-2008 he worked in the Ministry of Transport and Communications, during that time he was appointed as a secretary in the Licensing Tender Commission for technical inspection. He also presented what functions he performed during his work.
He stated that he did not know either Aghvan Hovsepyan or the latter’s son, but he knew Ohan Muradyan, because he worked with the latter, and he also knew that he worked in the Prosecutor’s Office.
Regarding the process of granting the license, he mentioned that it was carried out in a complex procedure, in two stages; the Government had set clear standards for the holding of the tender, where the applicant organization had to present obligations regarding the area.
After Arshak Petrosyan, witness Ashot Zalinyan was interrogated and stated that he was not in friendly relations with any of those present. He mentioned that he knew Aghvan Hovsepyan, they had known each other for a long time, probably since the late 90s, and they were in a working relationship. “I worked under the leadership of Aghvan Hovsepyan in the Prosecutor General’s Office, we are still in working relations, I worked in the Investigative Committee.”
Ashot Zalinyan expressed regarding the incidents related to him. “It was 2017 when my friend, Ohan Muradyan, with whom we have been friends since 1991, said that the Government is preparing a decision to denationalize the technical inspection processes and give them to private companies.” He said: What do you think? I want our children: his son Davit Muradyan, and my son Mikayel Zalinyan to be the owners of that property together. Both were students at the time. We talked with my son, and then I told Ohan, if the condition was that it would be in the names of the boys and they would not participate in either management or investment, the best option was that 5% should be my son’s.” He said, “We are friends for a thousand years, 10% will be your son’s, 25% will be David’s, and with the remaining 65% he will find an investor who will manage it.”
He added that after a long time he met Narek Hovsepyan, Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son, who was interested in the investment process. After that, he introduced them to each other, they looked at the area and made investments.
He noted that there was no investment from their side; the investors were Narek Hovsepyan and Arshavir Sargsyan.
– While looking for investors, can you tell who invited Arshavir Sargsyan?
– Arshavir Sargsyan personally called and came to me and said. I in my turn introduced him to Muradyan Ohan.
– Have you talked with Aghvan Hovsepyan regarding this issue?
– There was an unwritten practice in the Prosecutor’s Office, people were interested in each other’s affairs, and asked, Aghvan Hovsepyan said good luck and that was it.
– How old was Narek Hovsepyan at that time, do you remember?
– If I am not mistaken, Narek was older than my son (born in 1988).
The Prosecutor mentioned that the witness in this case was interrogated face-to-face with Arshavir Sargsyan, to the question of his position regarding the latter’s testimony, the witness answered that there were things in what Arashvir Sargsyan said, which he heard for the first time, but he could not give an assessment of what the other person said. The witness answered yes to the Judge’s question whether he had told the truth during the interrogation.
The Prosecutor asked:
– And didn’t your truth contradict to Arshavir Sargsyan’s statement?
– If we look at the chronology, my truth had begun earlier, because Ohan was my friend, we started it in his area. The idea of initiating something cannot be a monopoly for anyone.
– Did your and Arshavir Sargsyan’s statements coincide during the confrontation?
– No.
– Under those circumstances, can you say what was the reason why Arshavir Sargsyan, for example, said something wrong?
The defense side objected to the question, saying how should the witness know the reason? Also, the witness stated that he was not aware of Aghvan Hovsepyan’s participation in the license acquisition process.
Next, the witness Mikael Zalinyan was questioned, the latter was not in friendly relations with any of the attendees of the Court session. He knew Aghvan Hovsepyan as the former Prosecutor General.
He informed about the company “Trans System” LLC that he was the holder of the dividend there, it was about 10%, he did not personally participate in the management, and he only informed his friends about the technical inspection station regarding the investment.
“Ohan Muradyan suggested to my father that there should be more close relations between each other that I become a dividend owner, a “shareholder”, and I asked my father questions about the rest. We talked that I would not participate in the investment and management, and, as I already mentioned, my contribution was in terms of information,” Mikayel Zalinyan said.
As for Narek Hovsepyan, he mentioned that there were no personal contacts, and he had known Ohan Muradyan’s son since his student days.
According to the witness, he still receives dividends from that company, but he has no information about the involvement of Aghvan Hovsepyan in that process.
The questioning of the subpoenaed witnesses was finished, the session was adjourned.
The next Court session will take place on 24 May, during which the other witnesses in the case will be questioned.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
