The court hearing in the case of Aghvan Hovsepyan, former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, former Deputy of the Supreme Council, and former Prosecutor General, continued on August 6 at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The presiding judge is Tigran Davtyan.

According to the indictment, Aghvan Hovsepyan, while holding the positions of Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia from March 18, 2004, to September 13, 2013, and Chairman of the RA Investigative Committee from July 18, 2014, to June 11, 2018, being a high-ranking official endowed with the functions of a representative of authority, contrary to the prohibition on engaging in entrepreneurial activities established for persons holding office, jointly with Arshavir Sargsyan, a resident of Yerevan city with whom he had close relations, founded organizations engaged in entrepreneurial activities during 2007-2015 with a single intent. He also personally participated and through trusted persons – his sons – in the management of organizations engaged in entrepreneurial activities, which was associated with granting privileges and advantages to these organizations and patronizing them in other ways. As a result of illegal participation in entrepreneurial activities, he legalized property obtained through criminal means in particularly large amounts.

In addition, in early October 2010, on a day not specified by the investigation, Aghvan Hovsepyan, using the influence of his position, instigated Hrachya Avagyan, the head of the Byurakan community in Aragatsotn region, to abuse his official powers by means of persuasion, and then legalized property obtained through criminal means in large amounts as a result of this act.

Furthermore, Aghvan Hovsepyan demanded and received a particularly large bribe from Varsham Gharibyan on February 14, 2011, for patronage in service to his benefit, and then legalized property obtained through criminal means in particularly large amounts.

Additionally, on April 10, 2017, Aghvan Hovsepyan instigated Vrezh Markosyan, with whom he had close relations, to embezzle property of particularly large value belonging to Varsham Gharibyan that was entrusted to him.

According to Iravaban.net, three witnesses were interrogated during this court session.

The first of the summoned witnesses to be interrogated was Hrachya Avagyan, the former head of the Byurakan community in Aragatsotn region. He stated that there were land plots in the Byurakan community that had previously been community property and were then returned to the Forestry Committee. The community applied to the committee to return the land plots, and by decision of the community council, the land plots were put up for auction, in which the defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son, Narek Hovsepyan, and several other residents participated. Narek Hovsepyan was declared the winner of the auction, and this process took place in 2010.

Witness Hrachya Avagyan noted that he worked as the community leader and chairman of the village soviet executive committee from 1984 to 2012.

When asked by the public prosecutor, prosecutor Koryun Serobyan, about the circumstances under which he met Aghvan Hovsepyan, the witness said that during his work, Aghvan Hovsepyan had a private house in Byurakan, they met during that time, and he approached him on various issues related to the village.

Regarding the private house, he stated that it did not belong to the community, it was the building of the Artists’ Union, and he was not aware of the procedure by which the area was transferred to Aghvan Hovsepyan.

To the public prosecutor’s question about whether he knows Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons, the witness said he met Narek Hovsepyan once or twice, they came to him with documents before the land auction.

• How did you know it was Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son?
• He brought the documents, I read them, there is a declaration, he came with some friend.
• Did you find out then that he was Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son?
• Yes, I also knew the younger son, Armen Hovsepyan? I saw the other son once in church.
• What auction took place, what land plots were there, in what quantity, who participated, what involvement did you have with these auctions?
• There was an auction commission, there was a land commission, there was the council, everyone listened in turn, they gave an announcement in the newspaper, several people from the village also participated, there was Ludwig Tadevosyan… several people participated, then withdrew.
• What was the purpose and functional significance of the land plots?
• The land plots were for agricultural purposes, but unusable, that is, it was a ravine, this ravine was previously the property of Byurakan. This side of the Amberd River remained in our territory, the council found it expedient that it should be alienated, we put it up for auction, and several people participated, I don’t even remember the number – how many people participated.

To the prosecutor’s next question about whether the residents of the community expressed any dissatisfaction regarding the alienated land plots, the witness said: not during the period he worked.

Regarding the conversation between him and Aghvan Hovsepyan about the auction, he said: “There was a conversation, I said that there is this land plot, their house was in the upper part of it, we didn’t expand, I didn’t talk to him about this topic at all. The auction took place in 2010-2011 or a little before that, I may have been included in one of the commissions at the auction as the chairman of the supervisory commission… I don’t remember well.”

When asked who was carrying out the acceptance of auction applications in the municipality, the witness said that everyone had their own responsibility, they were organizing, everyone was performing their duties.

He mentioned only one name from the applicants, Mejlum (Ludwig Tadevosyan), he didn’t remember the names of the others.

• Who else from the community residents do you remember, you mentioned one Mejlum, his real name is Ludwig, who else do you remember from the participants?
• There was some Varazdat, I don’t know what his surname was, I don’t remember.
• Do you know Sahak Tadevosyan?
• Yes, he’s Mejlum’s relative, his brother’s son, as far as I know.
• And Sahak Tadevosyan, do you remember if he participated in that auction or not?
• He was there, but I don’t know, maybe he was a participant.
• Did you see him on the day of the auction?
• I don’t remember like that, many years have passed already.
• Are you familiar with the case materials?
• Not that much.
• Has anyone told you that they weren’t at the auction?
• No.
• And has a decision been made regarding you in this case?
• Yes.
• Did you receive the decision?
• Yes.
• Did you appeal it?
• No.
• Why didn’t you appeal? Did you agree with the description of the decision?
• Not really.
• Then why didn’t you appeal?
• Because I’m tired of appealing, I’ve worked for 30 years continuously on one job… If I felt that I would work in state structures again, I would definitely appeal: there was no desire to appeal.

Lawyer Anna Mantashyan made a statement regarding the question, saying that the witness clearly stated that he doesn’t want to get into “hassles”, has no desire, and that decision relates to the application of the statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations can be applied to a person, and this doesn’t mean at all that the person admits their guilt: “Now the esteemed prosecutor is trying to somehow use this situation in favor of the prosecution.”

Regarding rumors about building a hydroelectric power plant in the village, the witness said he wasn’t aware of who wanted to build it, the conversations were after his term in office.

The public prosecutor inquired whether there had been any demand or threat from Aghvan Hovsepyan towards the witness, to which the witness replied: “I wouldn’t say so, we, as both the prosecutor of the republic and as a person from our village, haven’t seen anything bad, we’ve always heard good things, on the contrary, people have often turned to him for advice, he has received them, seen them off, such things have happened in the community. There has been no threat, he will testify to this too: I haven’t seen any threat.”

Referring to the episode of seeing Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son, the witness stated that he had come in a red car with a friend.

The public prosecutor also asked about the treatment towards him during the interrogations, to which the witness said that he was treated well, but there were questions he didn’t want to answer or address: “The investigator says that the villagers said that you are Aghvan Hovsepyan’s friend, close person, there were such questions that I didn’t want to answer, if we haven’t called each other for 15 years, that’s not a friend, it’s a colleague. We haven’t met at all outside of work.”

The defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan told the witness: “Relax, you’re standing before the court, clear yourself of everything, and whatever they ask, give only truthful testimony.”

He asked if there had ever been any threat in their relationship, to which the witness said no.

The prosecutor also asked, given that Aghvan Hovsepyan was the Prosecutor General of the RA at that time, if the latter made any demand, could he have opposed him, said no, to which the witness replied that he has always had his own viewpoint, it’s possible that he would have said no as well.

Koryun Serobyan petitioned to publish the witness’s testimony given during the preliminary investigation, as there are significant contradictions, during the preliminary investigation the witness stated that these auctions were organized formally under the guidance of Aghvan Hovsepyan, no one participated in the auctions, including Narek Hovsepyan.

There were no objections from the defense, and despite the fact that the witness had no right to object to the petition, he did not want it to be published.

The preliminary investigation testimony of witness Hrachya Avagyan was published.

Regarding several episodes, the witness insisted that the records of the testimony given during the preliminary investigation do not correspond to reality, lawyer Anna Mantashyan emphasized that he is not the only witness who expresses the same position regarding the preliminary investigation testimony.

The witness said that he does not accept what is written, the auction actually took place: “I’m just surprised why it should be written that it didn’t take place, how did it not take place, why should I have said then that it didn’t take place, and now say that it did take place. The majority coincides, I accept what I said, but these two moments I don’t accept, that let’s say I said it didn’t take place, how did it not take place when it did take place.”

The interrogation of the witness was completed, next witnesses Ashot Rustamyan and Ashot Sargsyan were interrogated.

Ashot Rustamyan said that he worked in the village municipality as a first-class specialist in 2007, and in the forestry from 1987 to 1999.

The public prosecutor asked whether Aghvan Hovsepyan has a private house in Byurakan community or not, he said yes, it is located in the upper part of the village.

He noted that he did not participate in the construction work of the private house, had no connection with these works, he remembers that the village guys worked there: “I know Ludwig Tadevosyan, they called him Mejlum, but not the workers.”

He said that he doesn’t know Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons, he only knows Narek, when they said in the village that he was coming to participate in the auction, he didn’t see him at that time.

Witness Ashot Sargsyan also noted that initially there was a building of the Artists’ Union in the area of the private house, villagers also participated in the construction work, among whom was his son. To the prosecutor’s question about who hired him, he said Ludwig, and he doesn’t know who gave the money.

The preliminary investigation testimony of witness Ashot Sargsyan was also published, as there were contradictions regarding the signing of applications, the organization of the auction, and Narek Hovsepyan’s participation in the auction.

After the publication of the preliminary investigation testimony, defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan made a statement, saying:

“Once again, we witnessed that the investigator did not record testimony, but wrote the descriptive part of the accusation with legal assessments. There are terms used in that testimony that this person is not even aware of, that is, it’s not testimony, but a descriptive part.

I ask the court to evaluate this, testimony is in the witness’s words, judgments, while here everything is summarized with legal assessments, judgments.

The prosecutor in his questioning constantly emphasizes: did the investigator make a mistake, didn’t the investigator write correctly, that is, with these questions he is obviously pressuring the witness.”

The session was adjourned. The next court session in this case will take place on August 8.

Details are in the videos.

Mariam Shahnazaryan