On 19 June, Judge Karapet Badalyan presided over the Anti-Corruption Civil Court hearing on the the lawsuit filed by the Department for confiscation of property of illicit origin of the Prosecutor  General’s Office against the 3rd President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, and his daughterSatenik Sargsyan, demanding the confiscation of property of allegedly illicit origin.

According to Iravaban.net  the examination of the evidence continued in the court. The documents in the 4th, 5th and 6th volumes were examined.

Vahagn Grigoryan, the representative of Serzh Sargsyan and Satenik Sargsyan, stated that in their opinion Deputy Prosecutor  General Srbuhi Galyan “does not fit” to the concept of a competent body, that is, the latter was not authorized to carry out an investigation, including making requests to relevant state bodies.

“We have the following point of view that making an inquiry is an element of the study established by the law on confiscation of property of illicit origin. The Prosecutor does not make the request ex officio, but within the framework of a certain study,” the lawyer said.

According to him, pursuant to the law, the responsible unit, which has the authority to conduct an investigation, in order to file a lawsuit for the confiscation of property of illicit origin in the future, is the specific competent body, the department dealing with these cases, which consists of the head of the department, the deputy, senior Prosecutors and Prosecutors. “In other words, the Deputy Prosecutor  General cannot be considered as part of the staff of the competent authority in any structural sense. The logic of property of illicit origin shows that, yes, the Deputy Prosecutor General has certain very limited powers in the confiscation of property of illicit origin; specifically those powers refer, in our opinion, to the judicial stage of the process.

According to Grigoryan, all such inquiries are inadmissible, the answers to such inquiries are also inadmissible, as a result of which the right to protection of personal data was also violated.

Prosecutor  Tigran Yenokyan noted that both the inquiries made by the Deputy Prosecutor  General and the replies received as a result of them are admissible and relevant within the framework of this proceeding.

He stated that this issue is regulated by the law “On Prosecution”, which clearly stipulates that the deputy coordinates the work of the field assigned to him by the Prosecutor General in the prosecution system, and during this coordination it is legal to make similar requests, and the issue cannot be disputed here. It should be done by the head or the deputy of the department for the confiscation of property of illicit origin.

“Questions fully fit into the logic of the Law on Prosecution and they are, of course, admissible evidence,” Yenokyan said.

The session was adjourned. The next court session in this case, the examination of the evidence from the mentioned part of the 6th volume should be continued.

The next court hearing is on 21 August.