A hearing in the case of confiscation of illegally acquired property of the 2nd President of the Republic of Armenia Robert Kocharyan and his affiliated persons took place today, March 18, at the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan.
The Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property of the Prosecutor General’s Office has filed a lawsuit against Robert Kocharyan and his wife Bella Kocharyan, daughter Gayane Kocharyan, the latter’s husband Vigen Chatinyan, two sons Levon and Sedrak Kocharyan, their wives singer Sirusho (Siranush Kocharyan) and Zaruhi Badalyan.
Note that all representatives of the respondent side have completely objected to video and photo recording of this and other sessions.
According to Iravaban.net, the discussion of the statute of limitations motion presented by the respondent side continued during this session.
Aram Orbelyan, representative of respondents Robert Kocharyan and Bella Kocharyan, presented 2 motions. The first contested the fact that at the time the Prosecution filed the lawsuit, Hmayak Navasardyan was not the chief of staff, while with the 2nd motion, the respondent side asked to invite a HayPost employee to court as a witness.
Orbelyan said that on November 9, 2023, when the relevant document was submitted to HayPost, Hmayak Navasardyan was not the chief of staff.
According to the latter, this is an important circumstance for the case, regarding which he will present a relevant observation during the examination of evidence: “If there is a dispute, there will be a need for a comparison of evidence, if not, let’s accept it as a fact; this circumstance is mentioned everywhere.”
Hamlet Harutyunyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, said that from the perspective of the motion under discussion, this circumstance is in no way relevant: “2 important facts seem to be ignored: the first is the contract we submitted signed with HayPost, which at the time of signing, Navasardyan was the general secretary, and the contract term is specified until December 30, 2023, and the ex officio representative was Mr. Navasardyan.
The 2nd circumstance is the clarification given to both the documents requested by the court and the evidence presented by them. HayPost stated that the package was handed over by the Prosecutor General’s Office for postal delivery on October 9, 2023.”
With the other motion, the respondent side addressed the issue of inviting postal employee Vache Gevorgyan as a witness, taking into account that the ordered delivery was formulated by the latter.
According to Aram Orbelyan, the latter may know the details of handing over the package for sending, when and by whom the package was handed over, whether the package was weighed or not, whether there were documents inside it or not, if yes, whether the latter is aware of what documents were there.
Another representative of the plaintiff, Artashes Harutyunyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, stated regarding the motion that these circumstances are not essential, as it is clearly stated in the response letter that it was sent by the Prosecutor General’s Office: “Whether it will be an office employee, Mr. Kocharyan will hand it over, or Mr. Navasardyan, is secondary, what’s important is that whoever handed it over, did so on behalf of the prosecution and had that authority.”
Hamlet Harutyunyan also asked whether they had tried to approach Vache Gevorgyan to obtain his consent and to make inquiries, to which Orbelyan gave a negative answer.
“Regardless of whether it was submitted to the court on October 11, 12, 16, or 21, what’s essential is our submission to the post office, and there seems to be no dispute on that part, because October 9 is specified in all possible documents.
With the received evidence, HayPost has recorded, saying the delivery was handed over to the post office by the Prosecutor General’s Office on the same day,” said the prosecutor.
To presiding Judge Narine Avagyan’s question whether the respondent side’s assumption is that Vache Gevorgyan did not accept and did not receive the delivery, Orbelyan said yes.
After hearing the positions of the parties, the court found the missed deadline for the motion excusable, but rejected the motion to question the HayPost employee as a witness, emphasizing that it is not substantiated.
The presiding judge stated that the cited facts should be clarified not by civil procedural, but by criminal procedural tools: “With the motion, Mr. Orbelyan questions both the fact stated in the letter submitted by HayPost and the fact presented by the plaintiff’s previous representative Mr. Kocharyan, who said that he personally handed over the envelope, specifying the time.”
Aram Orbelyan also emphasized that Kocharyan’s position cannot be accepted as evidence; it could have been evidence if the latter had been questioned as a witness.
He asked for a brief postponement of the session to establish a criminal procedural procedure, to discuss the issue of submitting a criminal report.
Hamlet Harutyunyan noted that the discussion of the issue of giving a report cannot serve as a basis for postponing the court session, regarding which the presiding judge stated that apart from that, the court has another pre-scheduled session.
The discussion of the motion to apply the statute of limitations will continue at the next session, which will take place on April 18.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
