No Reference to 'Obvious' Violations in Your Materials: The Russian-Armenian University Responds to the Prosecutor's Office

The head of the legal department at the Russian-Armenian University, candidate of legal sciences Sasun Baghdasaryan, has responded to the statement issued by the Prosecutor's Office yesterday.

"In response to the statement of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Armenia dated 13.01.2022, regarding your public reaction to the comment made by the rector of the Russian-Armenian University, A. Darbinyan, I find it necessary to note the following:

- The fact of initiating a criminal case based on the 'materials' you mentioned lacks any logical basis, as there is no reference in these official materials to the 'obvious' violations or crimes you referred to.

- The 'materials' referenced in your message received from the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation pertain to two inspections conducted at the Russian-Armenian University one year ago. The inspections were carried out by the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science of the Russian Federation, during which no significant violations were recorded, and the minor deficiencies noted have been addressed by the University. This is confirmed by the letter from O. M. Yakimchuk, the head of the relevant department of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science of the Russian Federation, dated 28.09.2021, N 07-1710, stating that the non-essential, negligible violations identified by the University have been completely rectified.

Furthermore, the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science is not authorized to inspect the budgeting relationships of universities, procurement processes, accounting, and other related areas. In this case, it is surprising how the positive conclusion obtained from the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science, which successfully concluded inspections and was not related to the alleged violations, could serve as the basis for initiating a criminal case.

- It is equally surprising that the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation has sent such a document to the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Armenia, which warrants separate investigation and confirms the rector's assessment that the 'case' is commissioned and fabricated.

- There is a much more interesting and lengthy story regarding the second inspection you mentioned, specifically the scheduled, comprehensive, mixed inspection carried out by the Department of Supervision and Inspection of the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation. This inspection was also conducted in 2021, and its final act was compiled and sent to the University on 12.03.2021. I must emphasize that no serious, significant violations were recorded in this act, much less criminally prosecutable violations. Furthermore, on 29.03.2021, a conclusion was sent to the University, in which the Russian side addressed all points indicated in the act one by one, stating the absence of violations in almost all points. As a result, a plan of action was established between the University and the Department of Supervision and Inspection of the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation, and the University regularly rectifies the insignificant violations present in this plan in coordination with the Ministry. This process is ongoing, and such developments are illogical and incomprehensible.

- Considering the above, we find the characterizations of the violations mentioned in your letter puzzling. I must note that such characterizations and violations, which formed the basis for initiating a criminal case, were attempted to be presented and included in the final act by certain members of the commission during the inspection, one of whom, by the way, is detained on corruption charges in the Russian Federation. In conclusion, I would like to draw your attention once again to the point that the initiation of a criminal case based on the materials of inspections that successfully concluded almost a year ago is unjustifiable and will undoubtedly be appealed in court by us."