It is Excluded that Any Judge Will Issue a Decision to Arrest Mikhail Minasian, Lawyer Says

The chaos surrounding the case against Mikhail Minasian arises solely because the pre-trial investigation body, the prosecutor's office, and generally the ruling political force's only goal is not to conduct an objective investigation into any criminal case, particularly this one, but to obtain a decision on Mikhail Minasian's detention for political purposes, diverting public attention from its core issues and presenting it as a success of the authorities.

This was stated by Mikhail Minasian's lawyer, Mihran Poghosyan, in an interview with Tert.am. "This criminal case has nothing to do with legality, and I mean a lawful criminal case. In other words, the history of this criminal case, the course of the investigation, the form, and the motions submitted to the court cannot be compared with the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence comes our claim that the current government is using criminal tools against its political opponents. Let me present the background, and people can draw their own conclusions about what is happening in this criminal case," said Poghosyan.

He noted that it is no secret that the request for Mikhail Minasian's arrest is being discussed for the fourth time, and in the previous three instances, the courts acknowledged that the investigative and prosecutorial bodies were committing violations. "If we want to live in a Armenia where the detention of a person involved in a criminal case is lawful, these procedural violations, which are very significant, must be eliminated so that the public also has faith in legal proceedings. In this case, the first time the investigative body and the prosecutor’s office tried to obtain a detention decision, the court clearly consented with a violation of the law, which was noted by the Court of Appeals, stating that there was a violation of the law," Poghosyan emphasized.

According to him, another motion for detention was reviewed recently on August 21, during which the prosecution requested the court not to discuss the motion. "The prosecution has the authority to make such a request, but they were asking not to discuss the motion because they wanted to withdraw it to resubmit a request for detention later," he added.

Poghosyan stated that during this time, the investigative bodies were looking for a suitable judge. "But the prosecution or the investigative body does not have the function solely of accusation; they are also obligated to collect evidence that justifies the person and excludes their detention. And the prosecution requests, 'do not discuss this motion; we will go and bring additional grounds for this person to be detained.' This means that the entire logic, desire, and goal of this case is to have a detention decision on Mikhail Minasian, which will be later used in a political context. It should be noted that this epic began on March 17. During this period, the prosecutor’s office applied to the court again on July 3, and the court refused again because the previous request had not yet been the subject of discussion. They were submitting one request without discussing another, trying to find out whether the judge preferred to discuss the motion or not. The actions of September 3 were a logical continuation of this. The motion was assigned to Judge Meliksetyan of the Avan residence, who probably was not entirely manageable and acceptable for the authority, and she formally handed over the case to the court president for re-assignment. I believe we should express our respect to Judge Meliksetyan, who did not resort to illegal actions," he mentioned.

Poghosyan noted that a hearing was scheduled for September 3 at 10 PM, but for unclear reasons, the session did not take place, and the judge cited the heavy workload to return the case to the court president. "And after that, when Mr. Manvel Shahverdyan shows up, doubts about his objectivity as a judge arise, disregarding the person's character. This makes it clear that the prosecutor's goal is to find a compliant judge. You see, the court has already refused the prosecutor’s request to detain Mikhail Minasian three times, all on different grounds, but we have three legal decisions. The Criminal Procedure Code states that a request for detention can be re-submitted if new circumstances arise. We have the decision of August 21, which rejected the investigator’s request, and I assure you that no new circumstance has emerged that would allow the prosecutorial body to make such a motion. Moreover, the amplifications of the accusation cannot be considered new circumstances. We have a new request that has been revised, the phrasing has been altered, the typeface has changed, but these do not constitute new circumstances or new factual data that the investigator was not previously aware of. There has not been any movement since August 21 that would allow the investigator to bring forward new factual circumstances," he stated.

Poghosyan also pointed out that the investigation body was not a proper subject to investigate the case against Mikhail Minasian. "Mikhail Minasian's accusations are related to illegal enrichment and submitting false information in declarations, which can only be investigated by the Special Investigative Service. The inquiry is being handled by the Investigative Division of the Tax Committee, which willingly becomes an instrument for this political government, as the SIS has already been discredited in the public eye as a body that executes political orders. This criminal case has not freed itself from that label; they have chosen such a body so that the public hears that the Investigative Division of the Tax Committee is investigating, so that they do not think that it is another order," Poghosyan stated.

He reported that the person who filled out Mikhail Minasian's declaration has been questioned. "We learned about this during the submission of the next request. Our claims were substantiated, stating that a technical error had occurred, while the investigative body maintains complete silence and does not provide an overall assessment of this incident. They remain stuck in their stereotypes, believing that their promoted thesis may correlate with objective reality, while the evidence speaks to something else that there was a technical error. Since the sole purpose was detention, these processes become problematic, and that is why I insist that there can be no talk of an objective investigation; the investigative body has engaged in an illegal effort to present to the public that there is a decision on Minasian's detention," Poghosyan concluded.

According to Minasian's lawyer, the prosecution did not provide information regarding the fourth request to Judge Manvel Shahverdyan about previous motions. "We provided that data and requested the materials from previous sessions so that the judge could also be convinced that there is no new circumstance and that the investigator does not have the right to present a new request for detention. The judge should now review the previous materials and compare them with the new request to see what new circumstances exist that do not exist in those materials, not counting the shifting of phrases. In the absence of instructions, it is excluded that any judge would issue a decision for detention; now they are thinking if they can issue an instruction to this judge and exert pressure or not, whether he is a compliant judge or not. The pressure hangs in the air since judges are aware of the authorities' desires, but is that sufficient to obtain the desired decision? They have chosen Manvel Shahverdyan now, and we reserve the right not to trust the court, and we will definitely submit a motion for the judge's disqualification," concluded Mikhail Minasian's lawyer.