Tuesday, July 30 2019 13:10

ArmInfo.The Prosecutor General's Office of Armenia made an explanation of the case of Judge David Grigoryan, urging not to  resort to political manipulations, based on their own narrow personal  interests.

The statement of the Prosecutor General's Office, in particular,  states: "Taking into account the fact that in the criminal case  initiated under part 1 of Article 314 of the RA Criminal Code on the  fact that the judge allegedly committed an official forgery  investigated by the Special Investigation Service of the RA, various  comments on procedural decisions continue taken by the preliminary  investigation body and the prosecutor's office, inadmissible  manifestations of an obvious distortion of reality and  politicization, we consider it necessary to clarify.

Based on sufficient factual data, the acting General Prosecutor of  the Republic of Armenia on the fact of committing a visible official  forgery by the representative of the judiciary on July 26 submitted  to the RA Supreme Court Council a petition for consent to initiate a  criminal case against the judge.

In 2019, the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Armenia  concluded that in two episodes of the case there is a reasonable  suspicion of involvement of the judge in the acts provided for by  part 1 of Article 314 of the RA Criminal Code, thereby giving consent  to initiate a criminal case against a judge for committing a forgery.

According to the data obtained in the criminal case, the judge (David  Grigoryan) in order to create the appearance of the consideration of  the case in the 10-day period established by law on September 14,  2018 at 09:30, not being in the court building, with the assistance  of the court clerk signed and attached to the court case the untrue  paper record of the court session from 09:30 to 09:30.

It is noteworthy that a similar protocol on the same day and the same  time was drawn up in another case, chaired by Grigorian. These two  protocols were drawn up in paper form, while under the law the record  of the court session is made in paper form only in the absence of a  court recording system in court. At the same time, there is no record  of the absence of the recording system in the halls of these  meetings.  The preliminary investigation of the criminal case is  going on; in the near future, appropriate procedural decisions will  be made in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The RA Prosecutor's Office, proceeding from the desire to minimize  damage to the reputation of the institution of the judge, continues  to provide limited information on this criminal case. In this  context, we consider inadmissible cheap manipulative speculations in  this case on the part of individual who declared  themselves without familiarizing themselves  with case materials and factual data, their distortion and the  formation of wrong public opinion. We urge to refrain from the  already common, but old and exhausted "tricks" that have nothing to  do with the professional approaches of partisan and interested  people.

At the same time, we recall the principle of the equality of all  before the law and the inevitability of criminal responsibility of  each person who has committed the alleged crime, regardless of his  position, position and functions.

It should be noted that this case was filed against Judge David  Grigoryan back in 2018, but it was closed for lack of evidence  confirming the judge's guilt. The case was resumed immediately a few  days after the judge ordered the abolition of the arrest of Robert  Kocharyan, who was accused of overthrowing the constitutional order  of the second president of the Republic of Armenia on behalf of the  former and current President of Artsakh, the case of March 1, 2008,  and its referral .

Subsequently, searches were conducted in the judge's office. It is  noteworthy that in addition to the documents on this criminal case,  materials on the case of March 1, 2008 were also confiscated. The  judge's lawyer claims that the search was carried out in  circumvention of the law, since neither Grigoryan nor the Supreme  Judicial Council were notified of this, as required by law. There was  no corresponding court decision.

On the eve of the ARIA, it temporarily suspended the authority of  Judge Grigorian at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office.  The BCC promised to make a statement to this effect, but has not yet  fulfilled its promise. But in the country's legal circles, a movement  began in support of Grigorian. Many prominent lawyers (over 50) have  declared their readiness to defend Grigorian for free. The judge  himself has not yet commented on the situation, he is on vacation.