Lawyer's Statement on Detaining Agvan Hovsepyan

The decision to extend the detention of former Chief Prosecutor of Armenia, Agvan Hovsepyan, for another two months has been challenged. The appeal has been assigned to Judge Armen Danielyan of the Court of Appeals, as reported by the lawyer Erik Aleksanyan in a conversation with "Factinfo." The hearing is scheduled for today.

The Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction, presided over by Judge Davit Arghamanyan, previously granted the investigator's request to extend Hovsepyan's detention by two months. Before this request was granted, the defense had raised questions regarding the assignment of the case to Judge Arghamanyan, but no satisfactory explanation was provided. Judge Arghamanyan rejected the request for recusal and continued to examine the case, allegedly without familiarizing himself with the case materials, according to the defense.

These circumstances have also been highlighted in the appeal. "Although the presiding judge admitted during the consideration of the motion that he did not know by what rules the head of the court assigned the case to him, whether it was distributed according to the rules and general criteria, nonetheless, he stated in the decision that the defense's arguments in this regard are mere assumptions and unfounded, lacking any factual basis," the lawyer noted.

He added that the evidence confirming the legality of the assignment should have been present in the case from the outset or transparent enough for interested parties to review; therefore, the burden of proof of the legality of the assignment lies essentially with the presiding judge.

"It should be noted that the arguments of the defense are also supported by a document in the case, which states that the head of the court, at his subjective desire and discretion, made a note next to the name of Judge D. Arghamanyan from among several judges mentioned, thus assigning the case to him. Such an approach can in no way indicate compliance with the rules and general criteria of case distribution," the lawyer pointed out.

He added that the Appeals Court should address whether the head of the court's assignment of the case to one specific judge at his discretion indicates that the case was distributed randomly and in accordance with the alphabetical order of the judges' names, and whether such a distribution can confirm that the court's activities have been organized in a way that ensures the effective judicial protection of Agvan Hovsepyan's rights and freedoms through a fair trial by an independent and impartial court created by law.

The defense team has reasonable doubts that the presiding judge has behaved in such a way that, for personal reasons, the case has ended up under his jurisdiction, which is allegedly due to his personal bias and partiality. The lawyer recalled that before being appointed as a judge, Davit Arghamanyan had been a legal advisor to the ruling party, the "My Step" faction, and had repeatedly made political statements and criticisms concerning the judiciary, even posting addresses of all courts on his Facebook page, which were to be blockaded by the call of Nikol Pashinyan.

According to the defense, these facts and arguments raise obvious and objective doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the court.

Regarding the circumstances that would exclude detention, the appeal has contested the existence of reasonable suspicion and the grounds for detention, as well as raised issues regarding procedural violations in the initiation of the criminal case. Specifically, the case was initiated six months after a report was filed, which does not comply with the procedures established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia. Even upon initiation, the statute of limitations for the case has expired; hence, the defense believes that the crucial condition for detention—the existence of a criminal case qualified appropriately—has been absent. Furthermore, the legal basis for conducting a preliminary investigation—the legal decision for initiating a criminal case—has also been lacking.

It should be noted that the court applied detention as a preventive measure, arguing a likelihood of hindering the investigation. However, as of December, the Anti-Corruption Committee announced the completion of the preliminary investigation, and the prosecutor sent the case back to the preliminary investigation body for further examination. The investigator has refused to disclose the instructions given by the prosecutor in court, meaning the content of those instructions remains undisclosed, depriving the defense of the opportunity to express a standpoint based on competitive legal criteria, and the Court has had no opportunity to evaluate the necessity of keeping Agvan Hovsepyan in detention.

According to the lawyer, it is evident that the Court did not even discuss the issue that in a finalized criminal case, despite the potential of hindering the investigation, the likelihood and risk have diminished to such an extent that other preventive measures, including bail, are fully sufficient to ensure Agvan Hovsepyan's appropriate conduct.

"In the finalized criminal case, the investigator has only confronted Hovsepyan with two individuals—Varcham Garibyan and Arshavir Sarkisyan—who have been interrogated multiple times throughout the case, and the investigator sees no necessity for further questioning them. No confrontation with any other individuals has been initiated by the investigator, indicating that there are no significant contradictions in the testimonies of any other persons and Agvan Hovsepyan," stated the lawyer.

In response to claims from the investigator and the court that all materials of this criminal case have been fully provided to the defense, with all evidence and witnesses revealed, under such conditions, the risk of hindering the investigation significantly increases; the lawyer emphasized that the investigator announced the completion of the preliminary investigation and the right to familiarize with the case materials is defined by law. "This means that Agvan Hovsepyan is facing negative consequences due to the actions of the investigator and the use of his legally defined rights, such an approach is evidently illegal, and this issue cannot be included among the grounds for extending his detention period," said Aleksanyan.

It is noteworthy that after the extension of Agvan Hovsepyan's detention for another two months, no action has been carried out involving him, and the defense currently does not know what instructions have been given by the prosecutor. Considering a number of circumstances raised in the appeal, the defense insists that there is no overriding interest that can justify keeping Agvan Hovsepyan in continued detention, and they are confident that applying a milder type of preventive measure would suffice to achieve the objectives of such measures.

It should be reminded that Agvan Hovsepyan was arrested on September 7 in the morning. The preliminary investigation body has charged him within a criminal case that has been investigated for about 1.5 years and filed a motion to select detention as a preventive measure, which was granted by Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan. Moreover, despite holding the highest leadership positions in law enforcement agencies for nearly 45 years, the preliminary investigation body has not been able to attribute any wrongdoing related to his official activities to Hovsepyan. He has been charged with conducting illegal entrepreneurial activities, characterized by alleged money laundering.

Even when making the decision to detain, the court noted that there was no likelihood of hiding from the investigation, yet cited his former high office positions as the reason for detention, claiming that he could influence the investigation without providing any factual examples.