Statement from the Defense Team of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan

The judge of the Yerevan city first-instance court, Armine Meliksetyan, decided on August 15, 2025, to extend the detention period of Mikael Sarbazan by 10 days. This was announced by the defense team of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan.

“A petition against the specified decision was filed, which was accepted for review by the judge of the Court of Appeals, Adriene Ghukasyan, on September 8. The judge set the date for the court ruling as September 17. During the court session on September 2, the first-instance judge Armine Meliksetyan scheduled the next session for September 15, which was likely to be the final hearing.

On September 19, 2025, the decision of Judge Adriene Ghukasyan dated September 17, 2025, was received, in which the Court of Appeals decided to extend the review period of the appeal brought by Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan's defenders by another 9 days, setting the date for the release of the court decision as September 26.

The Court of Appeals justified its decision to extend the review period of the aforementioned appeal against the detention as follows: “Considering the overwhelming workload of the presiding judge and the judges' participation in the annual training program from September 15 to September 19, 2025, the Court of Appeals finds that the date for issuing a decision on case number ED1/2791/01/25 should be extended by 9 days, with the date for issuing a decision set for September 26, 2025.”

This decision is puzzling to the defense and raises several questions: 1) First, instead of extending the deadline set for September 17, the Appeals Court could have made an actual decision regarding the appeal. If the court had time to make a decision, write it down, and send it to the parties, then why didn’t they make the actual decision? Especially since the decision is not immediately written and sent; they only inform parties over the phone about the decision, with the formal decision being received by the parties much later. 2) If being in training is such a serious obstacle that prevents work during that time (whether the first instance court is extending the detention based on this premise, or now the Appeals Court is extending the review period of the detention appeal, whereas the person remains in detention), how come the Appeals Court is still working and makes a decision about the extension on September 17 during this inviolable timeframe? They sign, stamp, and send it to the parties. 3) The 2nd paragraph of Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia stipulates that the deadlines prescribed by this article can be extended by the justified decision of the Appeals Court, by no more than five, ten, and twenty days respectively. Here arises a question of how the requirement for justification is checked when it is not included in the list of appealable acts. However, it is obvious that being in training cannot be a justified reason for not reviewing an appeal regarding a person’s right to freedom and postponing it. 4) In the first-instance proceedings, the court session was scheduled for September 15, when it was likely that the examination of the case would be completed. In this regard, the initial deadline set by the Appeals Court of September 17 did not seem too dangerous. However, when the case was not concluded in the first-instance court and the next session was scheduled for September 22, the Appeals Court decided to extend the review of the appeal against detention exactly on the day it had set itself, September 17. This allows the defense to reasonably conclude that the actions of the courts are coordinated, and the Appeals Court is waiting to see what the first-instance court will decide. This is yet another signal for the defense that the judicial review appears to be formal in nature, and the Appeals Court is openly avoiding its duty to carry out justice.