The Detained 22-Year-Old Assistant of Arusyavk Aleksanyan Is Not Depressed: 'Hraparak'

The newspaper "Hraparak" writes that the decision of the first-instance court judge Davit Arghamanyan to detain the 22-year-old assistant T.H. of judge Arusyavk Aleksanyan has been appealed, but has not yet been reviewed and has not even been assigned to any judge. This was stated to us by T.H.'s lawyer Garik Galikyan.

It should be reminded that the assistant was detained on October 21, accused of assisting judge Arusyavk Aleksanyan in the commission of an unlawful act and making an obviously unjust judicial decision. She does not accept the charges. Judge Arusyavk Aleksanyan has also been detained.

We asked Galikyan whether he had any contacts with his client during this time and what her psychological state is, given that we are talking about a 22-year-old girl. "Very normal, she has absolutely no depression," Galikyan responded.

We asked the lawyer whether anyone had ever faced such charges before and if there is any judicial practice on this matter. "In my practice, I have not heard of it," Galikyan said, noting that the charges and their justification are absurd to him.

According to the lawyer, it is difficult to predict what decision the appellate court will make regarding the appeal against the detention, but he believes that in any case, whatever decision is made, it will at least be justified.

The court considered that T.H. could allegedly obstruct the investigation. We asked Galikyan how the court explained that a 22-year-old girl, who has only worked as a judge's assistant, could interfere with the investigation. "I don’t know, I can’t say. That’s why I said that in my opinion and observations, that judicial act is absurd," Galikyan replied.

Commenting on the opinions that the only purpose of detaining T.H. is to exert pressure on her and extract testimony against Arusyavk Aleksanyan, Galikyan stated: "I will not make such a comment, because it is not a legal category, but I also have no right to exclude it as such." The lawyer reported that T.H. has not given any testimony during this time: "She has been arrested, charges have been brought against her, and she, taking advantage of her procedural status, has refused to testify and answer any questions." After T.H.'s detention, many lawyers indicated that there used to be an unwritten law that judges did not detain two people from the same family, but only one, taking into account factors such as the defendant’s age, gender, etc. In response to this question, Galikyan said: "You know, they always took into account in any case, if there were several defendants, whether these defendants were members of the same family or not. Always, in any case of applying detention, it is taken into account the person's age, gender—purely in an unwritten way. In this case, judge Arghamanyan did not take anything into account. In any case, if we look purely from a legal perspective, if a person has committed an act, then what does it matter? The legislator foresees that a detention measure should be applied against them. In any case, this decision should have been justified and substantiated, but I do not see any justification in their decision. When the time comes, and I have the right to declare 'the court's decision public', that is, to talk about the decision or refer to that decision, I may present more detailed aspects, circumstances that the court has pointed out, and in all those cases, detention should not have been applied to her.

T.H. began working as an assistant to Arusyavk Aleksanyan at the Ajapnyak 1 Court of First Instance last year, in December 2021. We asked Galikyan how T.H. could reasonably support or not support the commission of an unlawful act. "A person with a discretionary position exclusively performs the court's orders, that is, she is charged with assisting in the commission of an unlawful judicial act, but she does not make a judicial act, she can at most draft the judicial act, which is her exclusive duty, and today a person is charged based on the fact of performing her duties. An assistant cannot know whether that act is unlawful or not; she is not the one who makes the unlawful act. At most, she can only draft the judicial act, that is, the introductory part, the background, etc., but the one who makes the judicial act is the judge. And how exactly the assistant assisted in that act is incomprehensible to me. That’s why I say whatever decision the appellate court makes—whether it satisfies or denies our appeal—let's hope it will at least be justified," Galikyan said.

For more details, refer to today’s edition of the newspaper.