YEREVAN. – Friday’s court trial of the criminal case against Armenia’s second President Robert Kocharyan, former CSTO Secretary General Yuri Khachaturov, former Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan, and former Deputy PM Armen Gevorgyan started with a discussion of the conduct of the defense lawyers and the prosecutors.
At the March 23 hearing, Kocharyan's lawyers Hayk Alumyan, Hovhannes Khudoyan, and Aram Vardevanyan had left the courtroom in protest.
And the prosecutors were not in attendance at the previous session on Tuesday.
Explaining his aforesaid conduct, lawyer Vardevanyan stated that the reason was the illegal conduct of the court.
The court ignored the lawyer's attempt to defend; practice allows applying to such methods. "The court left me no alternative," said the lawyer, recalling that he had informed the court that the Constitutional Court had left for the deliberation room to consider the constitutionality of Article 300.1 of the Criminal Code. It should be reminded that on the same day the presiding judge had not listened to the lawyer, not considered the motion, announcing the rescheduling of the trial.
Lawyer Hayk Alumyan suggested that the court first rule out organizational violations. As an example, he reminded that the court does not announce what case is being heard—as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court noted that this had not been announced before, to which the lawyer asked to correct the mistake and state what the case this trial was about. Without announcing, the court did not allow Alumyan to continue his remarks, considering them beyond the bounds of appropriateness.
In his turn, lawyer Hovhannes Khudoyan drew attention to the presiding judge's conduct and, in fact, starting the examination. "You have changed your conduct and confirmed that you are being pressured," the lawyer said, adding that in this case, the defense had nothing to do in the courtroom.
Prosecutor Petros Petrosyan explained his absence from the previous trial by preparing a motion and notifying the court of his absence. But this contradicts the words of the presiding judge, who said at the last hearing that the notice was received only from Prosecutor Gevorg Baghdasaryan.
Prosecutor Baghdasaryan, in turn, confirmed that his absence was conditioned by the decision of the Constitutional Court and the preparation of a lengthy motion.
Aram Vardevanyan stressed that the decision of the Constitutional Court enters into force from the moment of its publication and cannot be connected with the steps of the prosecution. "The prosecutors deliberately flopped the [previous] hearing," the lawyer said, calling the case an illegal persecution.
The court ruled that the lawyers' actions could not be justified. Also, it reminded prosecutors of the need to be present at the trial, saying that the preparation of a motion could not be a reason for their absence.
The court considered the aforesaid absence of the lawyers and prosecutors illegal, on the basis of which it cautioned them.
This is the second court trial after the Constitutional Court declared Article 300.1 (overthrow of the constitutional order) of the Criminal Code in conflict with Articles 78 (principle of proportionality) and 79 (principle of certainty) of the Constitution, and therefore invalidated it on March 26. It is not clear what kind of “overthrow” is in question, given that the aforesaid article was adopted under one constitution, and they had tried to amend it under another constitution.
The aforesaid defendants are charged under this very article of the Criminal Code.
In fact, the court needs to terminate these defendants’ criminal prosecution under the said article, as well as of others who are charged with similar charges in this criminal case.
Nonetheless, the court on Tuesday refused to discontinue this criminal prosecution, and adjourned the hearing due to the absence of the prosecution.
It is not ruled out that an attempt will be made to re-qualify the charge.
