On September 11, the hearing in the case of former Minister of Economy Vahan Kerobyan and Ashot Hovhannisyan, the founder of “Synergy” company, continued in the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Meri Mosinyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, the presiding judge announced that the issue of live broadcast and video recording was discussed in the previous session, and defendant Ashot Hovhannisyan objected. Accordingly, only photography was allowed.
Murad Muradyan, the authorized representative of the victim, appeared in court. The judge clarified that this session would also address the issue of filing a property claim by the latter.
Note that in the previous court session, the issue of determining the volume of evidence to be examined was discussed, and the prosecutor presented the evidence of the prosecution.
Ashot Hovhannisyan’s advocate Gor Ohanyan proposed to examine the documents in the volumes he indicated.
Vahan Kerobyan’s advocate Tigran Yegoryan also presented the evidence subject to examination.
These documents included a report submitted by the relevant NSS employee, which initiated the operational-intelligence measures, motions regarding the implementation of operational-intelligence measures, court decisions, records of the results of OIMs, and other documents.
Prosecutor Gevorg Sargsyan said regarding the evidence subject to examination presented by the advocates that the instructions of the Prosecutor General can’t actually have any evidentiary significance, and the advocates have even appealed these decisions in court, and there has been no consideration by the court regarding the legitimacy of these decisions.
“When the prosecution presents its evidence, it indicates what is being confirmed by them. In this case, the defense did not indicate what will be confirmed or refuted in relation to the accusation as a result of examining these documents, so that it would be clear to us as well,” said the prosecutor.
In response to the prosecutor, Ashot Hovhannisyan’s advocate Gor Ohanyan said that he had not appealed the Prosecutor General’s decision, and also noted that it is also a type of evidence, as other evidentiary procedural actions are also considered a type of evidence: “Our reasoning regarding these decisions is that the Prosecutor General violated the rule of investigative jurisdiction with his instruction, which was provided for by the relevant part of Article 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at that time.”
The advocate emphasized that it is not clear how the violation was manifested and what impact it had on other participants in the proceedings, and the essence of the motion is not to violate the meaning of preliminary hearings, to examine it later, allowing the defense to refer to them during the evidence contestation phase.
The court recorded that the materials of the proceedings presented to the court are initially considered examined and there is no need for additional examination: “But taking into account the fact that the defense thinks that they can confirm or refute any circumstance significant for future motions, the court sees no obstacle in addressing these procedural materials after examining the evidence, but, initially, in the court’s assessment, they are not evidence, but procedural materials.”
Regarding the procedural procedure, the presiding judge said that they will examine the written evidence, which includes CDs, listen to the authorized representative of the victim, witnesses and defendants who have expressed a desire to be questioned, and then address the procedural materials mentioned by the advocates.
The authorized representative of the victim stated that he would present the property claim in the next phase of the trial, as there is a need to consult with an advocate. The judge noted that a property claim can be submitted until the end of the preliminary hearings.
The representative asked for an opportunity to present at the next session. The presiding judge said that taking into account the victim’s representative’s statement that he wants to involve an advocate and discuss with the latter, she cannot deny the opportunity to exercise his rights, accordingly, they will address this issue at the next court session.
Vache Simonyan, Vahan Kerobyan’s other advocate, joined the court session late, saying that there are certain questions regarding the evidence addressed to the prosecution.
Regarding this, Judge Meri Mosinyan said: “At the previous court session, the prosecution’s evidence was presented, and Mr. Sargsyan also presented what circumstance was established for making a verdict, therefore we have passed that phase, now we cannot return to that phase because you were late for the court session.”
The prosecutor said that clarifications have already been given regarding these issues: “I’m not going to give separate clarifications to the advocates about this.”
Ashot Hovhannisyan’s advocate Gor Ohanyan made a motion, which concerned temporarily lifting the border crossing ban applied to his client.
He noted that a need has arisen for Ashot Hovhannisyan to travel to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as on September 4, a letter was received from the executive director of the Netherlands branch of Synergy International Systems.
In particular, the executive director in his letter mentioned the problems that could hinder banking operations in the region.
He stated that his immediate presence is necessary, especially in the case when several strategic clients are reconsidering the extension of contracts signed with the company, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and another agency, and this could pose a serious threat to their current and future involvement in markets, to ensure business stability.
He motioned to allow Hovhannisyan to cross the RA border in the period from September 20 to 30.
The court will address the examination of the motion at the next session to be held on September 18.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
