Defense Team of Archbishop Mikael Requests Oral Proceedings for Appeal Against Arrest Decision

The defense team of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan has submitted petitions for special review to the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Armenia, which has been assigned to Judge Vache Margaryan. Judge Vache Margaryan accepted the defense's petitions for consideration and determined on July 14, 2025, to conduct the special review in a written procedure, setting July 24, 2025, as the date for the court's decision (the stated decision was received by the defense on July 17, 2025).

On July 15, 2025, the defense team of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to conduct the review of the appeal against the arrest in oral proceedings. The defense has not yet received information regarding the examination of this motion.

According to the defense’s motion, “Article 264, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia stipulates that the court is entitled, on its own initiative, to conduct the proceedings described in paragraph 3 of this article in oral procedure or transform a written procedure into an oral procedure by its decision, notifying the relevant participants in accordance with the procedure established by this code. Although the legislator has not established specific conditions for oral proceedings, and the discretion to decide lies with the court, we believe that the court's discretion manifests itself based on several legal and moral circumstances that reasonably require a detailed examination of the case. We find that there are circumstances in our case that warrant the court conducting the appeal proceedings in oral procedure.

Firstly, it is essential to note that there are significant circumstances regarding the issue of the presiding judge’s recusal that need clarification. In this regard, the defense has questions for the court, and after obtaining clarifications on these questions, it may become clear whether the concerns regarding recusal of the court are alleviated or confirmed. For this reason, it is necessary to conduct the examination of the appeal in oral procedure, as without it, it would be impossible to effectively exercise the noted right, especially in this case, which has garnered public resonance and political context.

Secondly, this case also contests the existence of circumstances barring criminal prosecution (within the framework of the principle of ne bis in idem), which holds critical importance and requires thorough and deep discussion. An oral procedure would allow the parties to fully exercise their rights, including responding to the other party's arguments or the court's inquiries. This would also enable the court to receive complete and convincing information, thus helping the court in making a decision that considers all the peculiarities of the case, as it may lead to the satisfaction of the appeal.

We also believe that ensuring the accused’s right to direct participation plays a crucial role in the proceedings concerning their deprivation of liberty. We think that the accused should have the opportunity to see and hear the court directly and present their position without the constraints of mediated communication. An oral procedure allows the accused not only to obtain information but also to actively participate in the decision-making process concerning their fate. This is vital for ensuring a fair trial and at least creating the impression (the court must not only be fair but also appear to be so).

Especially in a case where the accused is a high-ranking clergyman, and this procedure is extremely sensitive to society, it is important that there is public awareness and visibility that the court is willing and wants to examine issues related to an individual's freedom directly. This also increases the trust and respect for the judicial system. This is critically important for ensuring the right to a fair trial, as it must be at least visible to the accused that their case is being tried not merely formally, but by a genuinely legal and fair court.

Finally, the arrest of a high-ranking clergyman has naturally resonated widely within the community. After all, by arresting a clergyman, the state infringes upon the spiritual values of the faithful people, therefore, respect for them also obliges the court to honor the rights, spiritual values, and needs of the faithful community and to demonstrate that the case of their beloved clergyman is being examined in the most transparent and fair manner possible. In this case, the examination of the case is not merely a legal matter but also carries significant moral and public responsibility.