Judicial Department's Response to the Government's Statement on the 'Military Uniforms' Criminal Case

Today, during the Government meeting, Judicial Department's response was heard regarding the accusations raised by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan concerning the delays in the results of corruption cases. In response, the Chair of the Anti-Corruption Committee, Sasun Khachatryan, stated, 'We currently have a criminal case involving approximately 20 million AMD in bribery related to the commander of the military supply warehouse. After the court accepted this criminal case, all the defendants were released from custody. I do not want to discuss the court's decision; however, we have a situation where, as a practice, if the defendants are not in custody, court hearings are prolonged for years, which is a problem.'

The statement clearly refers to the criminal case regarding 'Military Uniforms' being examined in the Anti-Corruption Court, which involves four defendants. Among them, two have been subjected to pre-trial detention as a preventive measure, one to house arrest and bail, while the last one has been prohibited from leaving the country.

The court, taking into account the specifics of the criminal case, found that the most severe preventive measure, detention, is not necessary since the combined preventive measures applied are sufficient to ensure the proper conduct of the defendants. Furthermore, the pre-trial authority did not present adequate evidence and justifications that the defendants could obstruct the investigation in the absence of detention.

It is also important to highlight that preventive measures in general do not contain punitive elements. Furthermore, it is unacceptable for the choice of preventive measures to serve as a stimulus for expediting judicial proceedings or as a motivational tool for more effective cooperation with the investigation.

If any court ruling is to be called into question by a state body, there are two avenues available: appeal to a higher court or the disciplinary responsibility mechanisms against the judge.

No disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against any judges in relation to the delays of the mentioned and other cases, which indicates that there are no substantiated judicial errors that would provide the Anti-Corruption Committee grounds to file a disciplinary procedure against the judge.

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that in the interest of an expedited and effective fight against corruption, the judicial authority is ready for any discussions and collaborative work that will, of course, be within the framework of legality and the ethical codes of judges. In such working and public discussions, the judicial authority is prepared to present its justifications and concerns to both the public and other branches of government, as well as independent bodies.

Starting January 2024, the judicial authority will also present public platforms detailing all shortcomings, delays, unjustified expectations, and the achievements made.