The preliminary court hearing in the case of former Gyumri Mayor Vardan Ghukasyan and 4 other defendants continued today, January 31, at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Meri Mosinyan.

According to Iravaban.net, defense attorneys Aramayis Hayrapetyan, Hovhannes Gharakeshishyan, Manuk Melkonyan, and defendants Armen Matevosyan, Gevorg Ghukasyan, Sasha Zakaryan, Spartak Ghukasyan, and Vardan Ghukasyan were present at the court session.

Note that the defense has objected to video and photo recording of the session from the beginning, and at this session, the presiding judge announced that it would not be permitted.

Written evidence was examined, presented by Shirak Region Prosecutor Taguhi Harutyunyan, who was involved in the case at this session.

The written evidence pertained to inspection protocols of various areas in Gyumri city. According to the evidence from 2021, Gyumri’s central park was inspected.

The protocol presented the general appearance of the area, including the buildings present there, including the TUMO Center for Creative Technologies building.

A section of the wall there was partially collapsed, most attractions were not operational, causing the road in that section to be in poor condition. No renovation work had been carried out in the area, only the TUMO Center building was being used.

Defendant Vardan Ghukasyan’s attorney Aramayis Hayrapetyan stated that there are concrete structure buildings next to the center in the area adjacent to the park, which the state has considered legal: “What’s essential here is that the oasis is not made with concrete structures, it’s some kind of structure assembled with metal constructions and is not considered real estate.

The fountain located in front of the oasis has been there for years, meaning that concrete section discovered during the site inspection was from Soviet times.”

According to him, the circumstance of building that concrete section in the park is not related to either Vardan Ghukasyan or Gevorg Ghukasyan. An inspection was carried out on Rustaveli Street in Gyumri, where there was a stone building with a green area on the right side.

Vardan Ghukasyan’s defender declared that the inspection protocol did not mention at all for which criminal case it was conducted. The defense challenged the evidence presented regarding the presence of a green area in the territory, with the defender emphasizing that there have always been built structures in that area.

According to him, it’s incorrect to draw a handwritten line on the cadastral map and mark it as a green area, thus the study was not properly conducted.

Note that one of the written pieces of evidence was not legible; the presiding judge said that this evidence is not subject to publication, if necessary, the investigator who compiled the inspection protocol will appear in court and read what he wrote.

The inspection of 31 Tigran Mets Street in Gyumri noted that there was a free area that was not limited by structures of neighboring built-up areas, while other land plots were burdened with other buildings.

Regarding this evidence, defendant Vardan Ghukasyan’s defender stated that his client has no connection to the mentioned area, it was alienated solely based on the conclusion given by specialists.

Defendant Vardan Ghukasyan also made a statement: “The municipality owns the city’s master plan, it had the right to make changes, including the relevant documents for these structures – are these documents that the Prosecutor’s Office has seized present in any of them, aren’t these documents in any of them? If not, I’m saying loudly – then the documents have been deliberately removed because that’s how it is, the municipality has the right to make changes under Article 60.”

According to him, in 2006, when the city’s master plan was adopted, it was written that it was subject to change; in 2023, they presented a new master plan, which gave most areas permission for building construction, for example, the Sayat-Nova area was given only for construction, for building residential buildings.

Ghukasyan stated that the 2023 master plan should be compared with the case materials: “I suggest involving the city’s chief architect in this case, let him come and provide explanations, he has the master plan and can present all explanations in detail.

…At that time they had it, the city’s master plan was in one place, and they gave the conclusions, today blame the mayor for that? The mayor wasn’t aware of anything, he should come and explain, not that I’m throwing it on them, but that their explanations are one hundred percent there, they couldn’t do anything wrong.”

The examination of written evidence continued in court.

Recall that according to case materials, Vardan Ghukasyan has been charged on the following grounds:

From November 24, 1999, to October 12, 2012, as the head of Gyumri municipal community, in accordance with Article 37 of the RA Law on “Local Self-Government,” he exercised the following mandatory powers in the field of urban development, among others:

• prepared the draft master plan of the community settlement and the community land zoning and use scheme, through the respective regional governor, after coordinating with the state authorized body, submitted it to the community council for approval within a one-month period
• prepared detailed zoning planning, land management and development projects for separate sections and urban complexes of the community, submitted them to the community council for approval
• prepared the community’s urban development charter, submitted it to the community council for approval
• provided architectural and planning assignments to developers, coordinated architectural and construction projects
• granted construction (demolition) permits in accordance with established procedures, formalized construction completion certificates, alienated community-owned property through auction in accordance with the master plan, land zoning and use scheme
• submitted draft decisions on setting the starting price of alienated property to the council for approval
• made decisions in accordance with the procedure established by the community council on leasing and reclaiming community-owned property in accordance with the community master plan, land zoning and use scheme, as well as lease payments set by the council
• prevented and suspended unauthorized land seizures and construction, immediately took appropriate actions by his decision and ensured the elimination of their consequences within a one-month period in accordance with the law, exercising the following state-delegated powers in this field: in accordance with the master plan and land zoning and use scheme, allocated, reclaimed, leased, and in cases established by law, alienated state-owned lands located in the community territory only according to contracts signed by him.

By Mariam Shahnazaryan