David Harutyunyan Submits Motion to Resume Hearing to the Supreme Judicial Council

The Supreme Judicial Council is set to announce its decision regarding the disciplinary case of Judge David Harutyunyan of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction on July 3 at 11:30 AM. However, the judge has submitted a motion to the Supreme Judicial Council requesting the resumption of the hearing. He has sent copies of the motion to all parties involved in the case, except for Karen Andreasyan.

After reviewing and analyzing the records and materials from the court hearings, new circumstances have arisen, according to the judge. It is worth noting that on July 26, during the hearing of Harutyunyan's case, the council decided to remove the judge from the courtroom. Lawyers who were on strike that day and did not attend the session immediately informed the court officials after the judge's removal that they wished to attend the session. However, minutes later, the court officials announced that the session had concluded.

Factor.am has obtained the content of the judge's motion to the Supreme Judicial Council. In it, the judge states that events occurred after he left the courtroom that the council and its members may not have been aware of. Below is a presentation of parts of the motion, where, according to the judge, it is literally quoted who spoke among the attendees and what discussions took place.

Specifically, Harutyunyan mentions in his motion: “Karen Andreasyan did not inform or record that after the judge's departure, the lawyers Yerevan Sargsyan and Mikayel Shkhimyan, who arrived at the Supreme Judicial Council, expressed their desire to participate in the hearing, but were not allowed to enter the building on the instructions of Karen Andreasyan. This has been previously substantiated at least by the audio and video recordings from present media and by real-time correlation with the audio recording of the parallel court session. However, the official transcript of the court session (even currently not professionally reproduced) clarifies that it is impossible to solely blame the executing court officials for this, and it is unequivocally proven that Karen Andreasyan purposefully ordered that the lawyers involved in the proceedings be prohibited from attending the court session and entering the building, while expressing regret and sorrow over the absence of the judge and lawyers, granting himself the opportunity to continue the session in their absence.

Thus, after Judge David Harutyunyan left the courtroom, the following events transpired, presented as literally emphasized excerpts:

The President of the Supreme Judicial Council, Karen Andreasyan: “Close the door. Close that door, in case someone comes.”

Are we recording? Close that door, and close it from that side as well. (Sounds of closing doors are heard) Close that door, close the door, tell the court official: close the door, check if it can be locked.

Official: (sound of heavy breathing) I closed it.

K. A.: Please take your seats. Turn the recording on. Things, please take those things and get them out from that side. Call the court officials to organize to remove them from the courtroom. Disconnect. Now come quickly, hurry up, all of you, come, please take those things out of here, just take them, put them in the hallway, then we will get to understand later. Any place… Also this phone, please. You guys come in, close it. (More sounds of closing doors are heard)

At 16:35, the court session officially begins…

At 16:45, Supreme Judicial Council Judge Atabekyan is asking questions to the representative of the Ministry of Justice, while at the same time, Karen Andreasyan is speaking softly with the court official who is reporting to him: K. A. – “What do they want?” … K. A. – “No, don’t let anyone in, tell them it’s not necessary.” The questioning phase continues, at 16:49, Council member Tumanyants poses questions to the representative of the Ministry of Justice, while at the same time Karen Andreasyan and another non-judge academic council member are whispering together...

At 16:50, Karen Andreasyan publicly addresses those present, asking whether there are any more questions and continues: K. A. – “Any other questions? None? The questioning phase has also concluded. Now, Judge David Harutyunyan was supposed to respond regarding the motion, but since he has been removed from the courtroom, and moreover, five representatives have not presented for various reasons, we will pass on this phase, and consequently, we also cannot direct questions to either Mr. Harutyunyan or any of these five representatives. Now the council proceeds to disclose the materials presented within the scope of the proceedings…

At 16:51. K. A.- Is there no objection? And other council members also seem to agree that there is no need to examine all of them again, especially since it has been addressed. All in agreement. (They silently confirm)… Moreover, let’s note that the recording is available, attached to the case file, as an impartial proof for objective review as a separate piece of evidence.

K. A. – Is there a need for a concluding statement from the side of the ministry? Ministry representative – No. K. A. – In that case, the council leaves for a consultative room to make a decision. I declare that the decision will be published on July 3 at 11:30 AM, please promptly notify the absent side to ensure they have the opportunity to be informed of the decision in the timeframe set by law. Thank you, the session is terminated.”

The above, and other circumstances, form a separate, independent basis for proving and undertaking efforts by the council to restore our rights, which were intentionally violated by Karen Andreasyan. In other words, there is an opportunity to restore and/or mitigate the damages caused before other procedures are implemented regarding this matter.

Therefore, I request that the disciplinary proceedings be resumed – allowing me the opportunity to exercise my constitutional rights personally and/or through representatives, even if the duration of the sanction is still underway (no timeframe for the imposition of the sanction was specified).

P.S. Considering that the aforementioned has come to light recently, the office is not working on Sundays, thus, this letter is urgently sent to the email addresses of the council members indicated in the case materials.