On September 5, the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal convened for a hearing in the case of Vahagn Vermishyan, former Chairman of the Urban Development Committee. The session was presided over by Judge Karen Amiryan, with Judges Armen Hovhannisyan and Mesrop Makyan in attendance.
Iravaban.net reports that during this session, Gagik Khachikyan, defense counsel for defendant Vazgen Poghosyan, presented his stance on the first instance court’s verdict.
Khachikyan argued that true objectivity would have resulted in acquittals for all defendants, which would have precluded their participation in any further judicial proceedings based on the first instance court’s verdict taking effect.
He aligned his position with the appeals presented by other defendants’ attorneys. However, he raised concerns about the disparity in sentencing among the defendants, questioning the rationale behind these differences. Khachikyan pointed out that Vazgen Poghosyan’s actions were substantively identical to those attributed to Gagik Galstyan, and legally equivalent to John Farkhoyan’s actions.
The defense lawyer emphasized the inconsistency in the prosecution’s approach: accepting the sentences for some defendants while contesting Poghosyan’s. He deemed this differential treatment unacceptable and urged the court to reject the appeal against Poghosyan’s sentence.
Khachikyan also stated that they saw no need for closing arguments and would therefore not attend the next session.
Prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan indicated he would present a comprehensive response to all defense appeals at the upcoming court session.
Vahagn Vermishyan made a pointed statement: “For 14 months, the judicial process has been prolonged solely due to prosecutorial delays. It seems involvement in Vermishyan’s case leads to promotions. What’s preventing Aghajanyan from attending, so our esteemed prosecutor doesn’t waste time consulting with him?”
The court addressed Vermishyan’s remarks, noting that despite the case’s complexity and multiple defendants, the Court of Appeal has maintained timely and orderly proceedings to ensure effective case examination.
The court further observed that the prosecutor consistently attends sessions, often waiting for other participants to arrive, and clarified that the functions of the first instance court are beyond their jurisdiction.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 24, where participants will deliver their closing arguments.
For full details, please refer to the accompanying video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
