Seiran Ohanyan's Defender Submits Motion for Dismissal of Prosecutor

The trial concerning the defendants Robert Kocharyan and others in the March 1 case continues at the Shengavit court of general jurisdiction in Yerevan. It is worth noting that during the previous court session, the defense team submitted a motion for the dismissal of prosecutors Petros Petrosyan and Gevorg Baghdasaryan.

Defense attorney Hovhannes Khudoyan based the motion for dismissal on several circumstances related to the actions of the investigative team leader Hrach Mushakyan, stating that the prosecuting attorney Petros Petrosyan displayed bias and repeatedly committed violations of criminal procedural conduct that could be classified as significant breaches.

During today’s session, Seiran Ohanyan's defense attorney Karen Mejlumyan also presented a motion for dismissal. According to him, he had previously submitted a motion to investigative team leader Hrach Mushakyan during the preliminary investigation, indicating that there were numerous confessions, including self-incriminating statements, about the mass riots that occurred on March 1, and requested that these be included in the current case. However, the investigator rejected his motion.

“At the same time, I want to state that Seiran Ohanyan has been charged under Article 300.1, which was adopted a year after the events of 2008. There is no reference in the decision to involve Seiran Ohanyan as an accused or in the more than 1000-page indictment regarding the previously committed Article 300,” Mejlumyan emphasized.

He also noted that he had requested several clarifications from the investigator regarding how the article, which came into force in 2008, could be applied to events that occurred earlier, yet the investigator provided no clarification, denying his request. “I have appealed the investigator's decision to the Prosecutor General, and my appeal was rejected by the prosecuting attorney Petros Petrosyan. In other words, the investigator and the prosecutor have committed gross violations and have not clarified whether the old article has been applied or not. In this case, the defense has been deprived of the right to effective defense,” stated the attorney.

He pointed out that on one hand, if there is no mention, it is assumed that the old article has not been applied; on the other hand, if it was applied and kept hidden, then it constitutes a violation of rights. “Thus, by keeping the basis of the charges stemming from the old law secret and rejecting our motions regarding it, the prosecuting attorney has committed gross violations, which could only be permitted by a prosecutor interested in the outcome of the case,” stated defense attorney Karen Mejlumyan, requesting the court to remove prosecutor Petros Petrosyan from the proceedings.

The defense team fully supported the motion for dismissal.