The Prosecution's Statement on the Publications of Defenders of Leaders and Participants of 'Holy Struggle'

In recent days, concerning the leaders and participants of the movement referred to as 'Holy Struggle', the prosecution has issued a statement highlighting that the defenders of the accused in the criminal case initiated for the preparation of terrorism and seizing power have begun to publish selective excerpts of evidence obtained in the criminal proceedings, along with their unilateral opinions and analyses regarding the significance of this evidence for the case. They have done this without awaiting the court's decision regarding the order and sequence of evidence examination as stipulated by law.

The prosecution noted that the defense side, clearly aware that the order of examining the evidence is determined by the court's decision, has turned public platforms into 'mini-trials' that lack opposing interests. They themselves discuss and ultimately resolve issues regarding the admissibility, credibility, and relevance of evidence, as well as the factual circumstances attributed to the accused, the legality of their acts, and the proven guilt of the accused.

Particular concern is raised by the uninterrupted and unwavering procedural behavior of defense attorney Hovhannes Khudoyan, who tirelessly seeks the core targets behind the statements made by Bagrat Galstanyan regarding 'sheltering the walls and compensating families', attributing it at times to 'traitors', at other times to 'drug dealers', and so on.

It is commendable that the defense has finally acknowledged that the individual conversing in the recording is indeed Bagrat Galstanyan, a position they perhaps previously held a different stance on from a tactical perspective.

At the same time, it should be noted that for any law-abiding individual, any discourse promoting or tolerating the execution of violence against people or the incitement of violence, especially from a clergyman bearing spiritual values, should be unacceptable. Thus, the defense side may continue to pursue other targets regarding Galstanyan's intentions with similar diligence and fervor. This does not in any way diminish the evidentiary significance of the facts obtained in the criminal proceedings.

We believe that the defense should similarly analyze the factual data acquired through secret investigative actions that legally confirm the preparation of terrorist acts, which pose a danger of terrorizing the population, creating unmanageable conditions among them, dissolving public authorities, depriving civilians of their lives, causing serious or moderate harm to health, causing substantial property damage, and other severe consequences.

It is evident that the defense is attempting to influence public sentiment or opinion through such behavior, thereby aiming to undermine the unique and irreplaceable evidentiary mass obtained in the criminal proceedings, which has been acquired exclusively under proper legal procedures and is rightly included in the evidentiary mass confirming the guilt of individuals.

Ultimately, the answers to all these questions can only be provided by a legally valid final court ruling. Therefore, we again urge strict adherence to the code of conduct for attorneys, respect for the participants in the proceedings, and abstaining from the dissemination of misinformation through unacceptable conduct. Any commentary on the actions of participants in the proceedings should be addressed in legally established manners, through petitions, statements, motions, objections, or appeals.