Court of Appeals Unlawfully Allowed Prosecutor's Office to Rectify Its Deficiencies, Says Gagik Tsarukyan's Lawyer

The leader of the Prosperous Armenia Party and National Assembly member Gagik Tsarukyan's lawyer, Yerevan Sargsyan, wrote:

"In response to the 'legal' statement of the absolutely ‘independent’ prosecutor’s office from today’s political authority: Today, the Prosecutor General's Office has issued a statement regarding Gagik Tsarukyan’s detention through the adviser to the prosecutor general. The essence of the announcement is as follows:

• The first instance judge Robert Papoyan is 'very bad,' shame on him for not carrying out the political order and not detaining Gagik Tsarukyan. Disciplinary action should be initiated against Robert Papoyan, and he should be publicly punished so that other judges who do not carry out orders do not dare to show such boldness again.
• The judge of the Court of Appeals, Mkhitar Papoyan, is 'nothing.' Indeed, he also did not fulfill the political order to detain Gagik Tsarukyan, which is why we filed an appeal, but at least he overturned the first instance court's decision and allowed 'Matzo' to detain him.
• Well, the Supreme Court does not matter — it's ours. Whatever we say, they will do; the Supreme Court will reject the appeal within three days, and they will send staff to ensure the signed notification is received at the Supreme Court quickly, so the case will be handled in time.
• And yes, the first instance judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan truly deserves praise. He remains the heart of the day’s political authority, consistently fulfilling and, we believe, will continue to fulfill the political demands of the authorities. The confirming facts include judgments regarding the imprisonment of former officials and others, which Mnatsakan Martirosyan has made.

It is clear that the Prosecutor’s Office feels it is necessary to publicly support the discredited judge Martirosyan, as there will be other needs for such decisions later. At the same time, with the same statement, the Prosecutor’s Office, through its adviser, insists that Gagik Tsarukyan is not being politically persecuted and that this criminal case and his detention are entirely within the legal realm.

Noticeably, the Prosecutor’s Office has avoided presenting the adviser's notes as an official statement, as they understand that the time and experience have shown that they do not have the right, given that after the change of power, the Prosecutor's Office quickly began making decisions favorable to the current political authority.

Specifically, based on newly emerged circumstances, unjustified decisions were rescinded regarding several criminal cases which had been approved just a short time ago, and, logically, opposite decisions were made regarding bringing individuals to criminal responsibility. They even began applying to courts to annul legally effective judgments against individuals previously convicted due to 'political persecutions.'

Of course, now they will insist that this has nothing to do with the desires of the current political power and that they never have and never will fulfill those desires. It remains to be seen if there is at least one employee in the prosecutor’s office who sincerely believes this.

Or, let’s say, is the Prosecutor’s Office capable of declaring today that there have been or are political persecutions during the governance of the current political authority? Just imagine what a vetting process would occur in the Prosecutor’s Office. I am sure you’re puzzled.

That’s why it’s better to remain silent than to make statements for which you might later regret and quickly make completely opposite decisions.

One more thing: one should not 'pat oneself on the back' for supposedly satisfying the appeal of the prosecutor's office based on the arguments presented by the prosecutor's office. The same arguments were not presented by the prosecutor's office during the hearing at first instance because they understood well that these had nothing to do with the actual basis.

This is precisely why the mentioned documents were not submitted to the court, nothing was referenced from them, their content was not studied in court, and therefore the arguments could not have been the basis for the decision of the first instance court judge Robert Papoyan. At least here, manipulation cannot be made, as the court session recording is available.

Moreover, the appellate court absolutely had no right to regard the first-instance court’s non-reference to unintroduced, unexamined, and not subject to review grounds presented by the prosecutor’s office as a violation, and to overturn the decision on that basis, sending it back for reexamination.

Since the statement of the prosecution was full of references to the appellate decision, I will also make one reference: “... The assessment of the appellate court is that it may be a fault of both the prosecutors and the investigator and the first instance court for not being consistent in making that matter the subject of discussion...”

But should the first instance court provide the basis for detention instead of the prosecutor’s office and should it pursue the issue so that the prosecutor speaks about the grounds and presents justifications? Should the judge also play the role of the prosecutor in court against the defense?

I will comment separately on the illegality of the appellate court's decision; however, in reality, the appellate court unlawfully allowed the Prosecutor's Office to eliminate its deficiency, which cannot exist in a state governed by the rule of law. At least be thankful to the appellate court for this..."