Why Tsarukyan and Defenders Did Not Attend the Court Hearing on September 23: Clarification

The legal team of Gagik Tsarukyan has released a statement clarifying why Tsarukyan and his defenders did not attend the court hearing on September 23.

The statement reads: “Yesterday at 11:00 AM, the examination of the investigator's motion for the detention of Gagik Tsarukyan started at the Central Court of General Jurisdiction in Yerevan, which was postponed due to the absence of Gagik Tsarukyan and his defenders.”

“It is necessary to note that under Article 285 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the court is obliged to properly notify the person presenting the motion, the defendant, their legal representative, and their defender, if they are participating in the case, about the location and time of the court hearing.”

“We emphasize that Gagik Tsarukyan and his defenders were not properly notified about the location and time of the court hearing, therefore they did not attend it for valid reasons.”

“Despite the fact that on the same day the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Armenia issued a statement claiming that Gagik Tsarukyan and his defenders had been notified about the court hearing, it must be noted that the aforementioned statement correctly avoided treating such notifications as proper.”

“Moreover, it is vital to highlight that according to the same article 2, the absence of a defendant or defender who has been timely notified while at liberty does not prevent the examination of the motion. Since Gagik Tsarukyan is at liberty, the above means that if he and his defenders had been properly notified about the time and place of the court hearing, it would not have been an obstacle to continue the court session without their presence.”

“It is hard to imagine that in the presence of proper notification, the court and other interested state bodies would not have taken advantage of the opportunity to hold the court session and make a quick decision regarding Gagik Tsarukyan's detention in his and his defenders' absence, especially if we present the evidence at the disposal of the defense that proves that a number of state officials have shown obviously dubious and atypical diligence to ensure that this motion is re-examined as quickly as possible in the first instance court by their preferred judge after the decision of the appellate court.”

“Finally, we would like to note that we have learned from the mass media that the next court session has been scheduled for September 25 at 10:00 AM. Therefore, being already aware of its time and location, we will appear in court on the specified day and will exercise our right to defense in accordance with the law.”