Lawyer Publishes List of Violations Against Mikayel Arzumanyan

Mikayel Arzumanyan's defense attorney, Yerem Sargsyan, shared a non-exhaustive list of clear violations committed against the former Commander of the Defense Army of Artsakh within just a few hours:

• 1. A notification summonsing Mikayel Arzumanyan for questioning as a witness at 10:00 AM on 25.08.2022 exists, yet it was never delivered to him.
• 2. Despite this, on the same day, a decision was made to forcibly bring in Mikayel Arzumanyan, claiming he failed to appear before the investigator without a valid reason. If the notification was not delivered, how could he know there was a summons? Naturally, this seems of no concern to anyone involved in such cases.
• 3. The decision was not carried out for 5 days. Only on 30.08.2022, via a “show of force” with special forces assistance, they stopped Mikayel Arzumanyan on the Artsakh-Yerevan highway to forcibly present him to the investigator, as if he were the most dangerous criminal in Armenia.
• 4. Hours after arriving at the investigator's office as a witness at 11:45 AM, it suddenly became clear that charges were to be brought against Mikayel Arzumanyan.
• 5. Around 19:30, it was suddenly revealed that he was to be arrested, as he needed to be presented to the court for detention.
• 6. The justification for the arrest was also the unserved notification regarding his appearance, constituting an obviously unfounded and illegal detention.
• 7. At around 23:40, Mikayel Arzumanyan was transferred to the courthouse and kept in a detention room.
• 8. The examination of the arrest request commenced around 12:10 PM. Since the maximum timeframe for the arrest had already lapsed at 11:45 AM, Mikayel Arzumanyan should have been released by that point, yet he was unlawfully held in custody.
• 9. At the beginning of the session, the judge presented Mikayel Arzumanyan with the 50-page example of the arrest request and asked if the defense had enough time to get acquainted with the accompanying three volumes (about 1000 pages) of materials. In response, I indicated that I attempted to familiarize myself with the material overnight, but the volume was too great to finish in that time. I emphasized the importance of fully understanding the materials, discussing them with Mikayel Arzumanyan, and preparing the defense, requesting a reasonable extension of one day.
• 10. The judging official decided to grant only one hour for this purpose.
• 11. I immediately declared that this time was clearly insufficient and that the court was violating Mikayel Arzumanyan's right to defense, as he would not have enough time to read the 50-page arrest request provided at that moment.
• 12. I insisted that I was confident the judge himself could not read such extensive materials in that period, let alone understand them thoroughly and conduct an objective examination.
• 13. The judge was unyielding and decided to provide only one hour.
• 14. On site, I demanded the immediate release of Mikayel Arzumanyan, who was unlawfully held in custody, but the judge did not respond and left the chamber.
• 15. About 40 minutes later, the court staff informed that the judge was convening an urgent session, which started around 13:05. During the session, the judge stated that upon further review of the materials, it became clear that the maximum timeframe for Mikayel Arzumanyan’s detention had elapsed at 11:45 AM, and therefore he should already be free but was required to participate in the hearing regarding the arrest request.
• 16. I questioned the court as to whether this was not evidence that the judge also had not managed to familiarize himself with the materials in the case, which is why he had previously failed to ascertain that Mikayel Arzumanyan was being unlawfully detained, as well as who would be held accountable for his unlawful detention. In response, the judge stated that I did not have the right to ask him questions.
• 17. I believe the judge simply lacked the courage to release Mikayel Arzumanyan, unlawfully held in custody, without direction from superiors.
• 18. Subsequently, the judge apparently realized, through the same superiors, that providing only one hour for such extensive materials was unreasonable and that he had erred in allowing a serious violation, thus initiating discussion to grant additional time for the defense to review the materials.
• 19. I informed the judge of all this, pointing out that I had already expressed my position and that it should be taken into account. The judge then began to emphasize the importance of the rights of the defense, stating that it was crucial for the defense to be able to familiarize themselves with the materials, and he was prepared to grant additional time.
• 20. I asked the judge what caused his seemingly variable behavior, as he had previously ignored my comments about the importance of this right but was now asking for additional time. I inquired whether he had learned through calls that he needed to grant extra time, to which the judge again did not respond.

Ultimately, the judge decided to grant until 19:00 to review the materials, which clearly is not a reasonable period for such extensive documentation. After all this, can we truly consider that we are dealing with mere legal processes and that the judge will be capable of making an objective and fair decision in this case? It is evidently clear to the judge, already from the case 'headline,' that he needs to make a detention decision, thus he disregarded Mikayel Arzumanyan's rights to freedom and defense.