ArmInfo. In the judicial information system, the justifications for the two verdicts of the Criminal Court of Appeal concerning the second President of Armenia Robert Kocharian, accused in the March 1, 2008 case of overthrowing the constitutional system, are made public.
In accordance with the published rationale for the Kocharyan detention sentence, in particular, it is noted that Judge of the Criminal Court of Appeal Armen Danielyan, having decided to arrest the second president, was based on the fact that the accused would have unlawful influence on the persons involved in the case, will impede the exercise of justice.
Justifying its decision about Kocharyan's arrest, the Court of Appeal notes that the combination of information about border crossings of the Republic of Armenia by Kocharyan, as well as his activities abroad, provides sufficient grounds for taking the arguments of the prosecutor and the injured party about the possibility of the defendant's attempts to escape from the investigation. Armen Danielyan also claims that there is evidence that Kocharyan is connected with the charge of overthrowing the constitutional order. In view of all this, the Court of Appeal considers that the application any preventive measure against Kocharyan not related to imprisonment, including personal guarantee, cannot be considered effective.
The second verdict of the Criminal Court of Appeal suspended the decision of the court of general jurisdiction to terminate the proceedings on March 1, 2008 and refer it to the Constitutional Court to determine the constitutionality of the application of Article 301 of the RA Criminal Code against Kocharyan. Explaining the verdict on the revision of this decision of the court of general jurisdiction, Judge Danielyan stresses that it was made in violation of the procedural rules. Danielyan stressed that although the judge of first instance David Grigoryan noted that he had studied the materials of this criminal case, meanwhile, the question of discontinuing its production and referring the case to the Constitutional Court with the participation of the parties had not been discussed and the court session had not been convened .