50,000 Dram Distributed During March 1 Events, But Kocharyan Was Unaware, Defense Says

During a conversation with journalists following a meeting of the Parliamentary Permanent Committee on State and Legal Affairs, Chief Prosecutor Artur Davtyan did not deny that the regime change played a significant role in the reopening of the March 1 case. He stated that after the change of power, people began to cooperate with law enforcement agencies and provided unrestricted information.

Davtyan noted that the public will see almost the entire course of the trial of the March 1 case and will provide its assessments.

“It will be an exceptional, unprecedented trial. You will see at least three presidents from the Third Republic in various procedural statuses, and numerous public and political figures, former and current officials,” said Davtyan.

When asked whether the entire trial would be held behind closed doors, Artur Davtyan responded that there would be small sections that would be closed to the public, but generally, witness testimonies would be heard publicly.

It should be noted that yesterday, Seda Safaryan, a representative of the victims in the March 1 case, made revelations to factor.am, specifically stating that oligarchs had distributed 50,000 drams to military personnel involved in the events of March 1.

Regarding the revelations that emerged from the separated part of the March 1 case, Robert Kocharyan's lawyer Ruben Sahakyan told Aravot.am that what exists in the case exists, but the assessment will be given in court. Regarding the distributed 50,000 drams, Sahakyan confirmed that, yes, the money was distributed, but Kocharyan has no relation to the distribution of those funds. “That’s it,” he said.

To the media's question about whether he denies that money was also distributed at the state level, Mr. Sahakyan said, “I have already answered: Kocharyan has no relation, and if he has no relation, then the other questions do not concern us.”

When asked if the new circumstances that have emerged in the case are against your client, that they are circumstances proving his guilt and participation, the lawyer replied, “Of course not.”