According to Rumors, Various Individuals Have Visited the Judge: Prosecutor

I want to point out that representatives of the executive and legislative branches have periodically exerted pressure on the judicial authority within the framework of this court case. This was stated today during the hearing of Robert Kocharian's application to replace his detention with bail or a signature, by his attorney Aram Orbelyan.

“Every time the issue of Mr. Kocharian's detention is to be considered, pressures begin to activate. As soon as the issue of the detention's relevance is discussed, the pressures cease. The last active pressure was yesterday, the day before your decision,” he said, addressing Judge Anna Danibekyan.

Orbelyan claimed that according to rumors in the air, various individuals have visited the judge regarding this case, to which prosecuting attorney Gevorg Baghdasaryan objected. The defense attorney accepted the objection, stating that he would withdraw that part.

The prosecutor continued, “For that reason, we cannot simply say anything.”

“I don’t want to comment on the rumors in the air regarding your visits by different people; I’m merely stating that there are rumors in the air,” Orbelyan stated.

According to him, Kocharian's right to a fair trial has been compromised. “This process's continuation, regardless of what decision you make, cannot guarantee the right to a fair trial by an impartial court.”

While presenting the application, Aram Orbelyan stated that the admission of Article 300.1 by the Constitutional Court confirms that there are serious doubts that this article does not comply with the Constitution. “Considering the fact that the issue of Mr. Kocharian's detention was accepted by you after it was discussed in the advisory chamber, meaning without public examination, and, essentially, the conditions of detention were established based on the studied materials, I want to draw attention to the fact that at the moment the Court of Appeal annulled the first instance court's decision, there was a very important circumstance missing, which could not become the subject of examination by the Appeal Court.”

This important circumstance is that the issue of the constitutionality of Article 300.1 is being examined by the Constitutional Court. “According to the law on the Constitutional Court, upon receiving the applications of the parties, the Constitutional Court examines it if there are no evident grounds to believe that there is no constitutional issue. In other words, by accepting the issue of the constitutionality of Article 300.1 for examination, correlating it with Articles 72, 73, 78, and 79, confirms that there are serious doubts that they do not comply with the Constitution.”