“The essence of the charge is that an alleged unlawful act was carried out in March 2018. Those who make such claims simply don’t know the details and legal grounds of the case,” former Speaker of the National Assembly of Armenia Ara Babloyan said as he commented on the new charge against him at the request of Pastinfo newspaper.
“The most pivotal issue of the election of president of the Constitutional Court and the crucial days, including the materials of the criminal case, are March 5th (the resignation of Gagik Harutyunyan was promulgated) and March 12th (when a statement was issued on the termination of powers of Gagik Harutyunyan in observance of the 7-day time limit of the Constitutional Law “Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly”).
The duty of Speaker of the National Assembly is to ensure regular operation of the National Assembly, and this is carried out through the activities of deputies and the staff. The latter, developing relevant documents, governed by the relevant law, provided me with the statements on the resignation of the president of the Constitutional Court and the future procedure for my signature, and I signed them. I have never allowed myself to interfere in the activities of the Staff of the National Assembly or guide the staff in any way.
As I have informed, all of my actions have been in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and I consider the criminal case unlawful,” Ara Babloyan stated.
Based on the application of deputy of the National Assembly Arman Babajanyan, on October 28, within the scope of a criminal case instituted by the Special Investigation Service, a charge was brought against former Speaker of the National Assembly Ara Babloyan for possessing the powers of the Constitutional Court and official fraud. Today, the Prosecutor General’s Office didn’t confirm the indictment for Ara Babloyan’s case and forwarded the case to the Special Investigation Service for further investigation, stating that it doesn’t agree with the qualification of the act. In particular, according to the Prosecutor General’s Office, a charge must be brought against misuse of official powers, not possession of powers.
