Police Responds on Why It Prevented Armen Gevorgyan from Leaving the Country - Defense Calls It Illegal

The Police of the Republic of Armenia responded on June 21 to the defense of former Deputy Prime Minister Armen Gevorgyan. It is important to recall that the police had prohibited Gevorgyan from leaving the country despite a relevant court document.

According to the police's response, there has been no court decision allowing Gevorgyan to exit the country. His lawyer, Erik Aleksanyan, stated in a conversation with Armtimes.com:

"On June 17, we received permission from the court for Armen Gevorgyan to travel to the Russian Federation for work discussions. The police prevented Mr. Gevorgyan from going to Russia. We received a letter today, claiming that there has been no court decision. We have the corresponding court document, which content-wise fully contains the decision, if the police carefully examines that document, they will also be convinced of that."

"So, what we have here is the police, possessing a court document where 'decision' was not explicitly stated, took it and said that since there is no decision, we cannot allow Mr. Gevorgyan to cross the border. In our assessment, the police's actions are illegal because the court does not make a decision when the request is granted; a decision is only made when the request is denied. We believe this is entirely unlawful, as the police have created artificial obstacles. Moreover, similar cases have not been recorded in the past; the police have never created such obstacles and have executed court orders without any hindrance. We think that in this case, the police are showing a special approach towards all defendants involved in the March 1 case."

"Mr. Aleksanyan, it wasn't just you who participated in the appeal hearings regarding Robert Kocharyan and your defended clients. Were you notified of the session?"

"We merely exercised our discretionary right, meaning our participation in the specified trial was not mandatory. Besides, I have followed the entire course of the trial and can clearly say that my colleagues did their utmost, so my absence was not even felt. Regarding the notification, we were informed by phone.”

For more details, visit the original source.