YEREVAN. – The Tuesday’s court session on the criminal case against Armenia’s second President Robert Kocharyan and former deputy prime minister Armen Gevorgyan, documents were submitted to the court confirming their parliamentary immunity as MP candidates.
After a half-hour break, defense lawyer Aram Vardevanyan submitted the relevant decision of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) on summing up the voting results of the snap parliamentary elections on June 20. The decision states the ratio of votes of the winners and the number of their parliamentary seats, from which the "Armenia" bloc—led by Kocharyan—received 29 seats. The attorney recalled that the CEC decision can be appealed in the Constitutional Court, and the situation—together with the respective decision of the Constitutional Court—will be clear once and for all on July 26. It should be noted that the session of the new parliament will be convened after that, from which consent will be asked in accordance with the legislation on overcoming this parliamentary immunity matter.
The prosecution objected, stating that it did not understand at all what was being discussed here because either the discussion was inappropriate because the criminal prosecution against the two defendants had started long before the elections, or the court should have started the proceedings earlier if it saw the need to overcome the said obstacle.
The court recalled that a guilty verdict can also be the result of this trial, how does the prosecution see the actions in this case.
Presiding Judge Anna Danibekyan added that it is necessary to explain everything now, and that is why this court session should be adjourned.
The prosecution objected again, stating that the court does not carry out criminal prosecution and cannot act instead of criminal prosecution bodies. According to the prosecution, there is no need to apply to the National Assembly (NA) for criminal prosecution consent because the NA is applied to in order to start a criminal prosecution; but since the latter has already started, there is no need to ask for consent.
But the aforesaid did not convince the presiding judge, and she set the next court hearing for August 3, until all the respective circumstances are clarified.