Saturday, September 26 2020 15:23

ArmInfo. By some individuals  interested in the outcome of the case, the public discourse on the  decision of the first instance court to choose arrest as a preventive  measure against the head of the Prosperous Armenia party Gagik  Tsarukyan, in fact, with pre-prepared notes, with a manipulative  effect, smoothly moved into the sphere of personalizing the decision  and resetting its legal value. Gor Abrahamyan, adviser to the  Prosecutor General of Armenia, wrote about this on his Facebook page.

"From this point of view, I consider it necessary to focus public  attention on several obvious realities and facts, in part of which a  persistent attempt is being made to leave in the shadows, devaluing  the arguments and justifications initially presented by the  prosecutor's office, and giving them a political color.

First, it seems that no one wants to notice that prior to the  adoption of this decision, the court of first instance had a judicial  act issued by the RA Court of Appeal, which, in fact, almost  completely substantiated the legal positions, the arguments expressed  in the appeal of the prosecutor's office. And taking into account the  integrity of the grounds of the Court of Appeal and the legal  analysis, the RA Prosecutor's Office came to the conclusion that  under these conditions the Court of Appeal itself could, on the basis  of its own legal assessments and opinions, issue a judicial act  resolving the issue, and it was on this part that a decision was  submitted appeal. In other words, the court of first instance made  this decision, having the conclusions of the higher court regarding  the overwhelming majority of the main contested issues, a clearly  expressed legal position, which in no case could not be ignored.

It should be noted that prior to this decision, both the court of  first instance, by its decision of June 21 in connection with the  petition, and the Court of Appeal, by its decision of July 8, found  it confirmed that there was a reasonable doubt about Tsarukyan's  possible involvement in the commission of the acts incriminated to  him. And in connection with the sufficiency of the grounds for  arrest, the Court of Appeal, in fact, directly stated that when  considering the possibility of obstructing the consideration of the  case in pre-trial proceedings, the first instance court did not  subject a comprehensive and in-depth analysis, for example, the  specific factual circumstances of the case concerning, for example ,  found during the search of Tsarukyan's house of handwritten  "statements" of candidates for deputy. Moreover, the Court of Appeal  itself considered that consideration of <the specified circumstance>  is essential and decisive for discussing the existence or absence of  grounds for obstructing the consideration of the case in pre-trial  proceedings by the accused, since this may indicate not a possible  and / or alleged impact, but about direct and / or real influence>, -  said the adviser to the Prosecutor General.

He also called for an end to speculation about the deliberate  politicization of yesterday's decision to arrest Tsarukyan. Taking  into account the fact that the decision of the RA Court of Appeal to  cancel the decision of the first instance court came into legal  force, the RA Prosecutor's Office initiates the process of initiating  disciplinary proceedings against the judge of the first instance  court, who made a decision on June 21 to reject the motion to arrest  Tsarukyan. As Abrahamyan explained, this decision violated the  generally accepted norms of legal practice and distorted the  positions expressed in the decisions of the ECHR and the decisions of  the RA Court of Cassation on the predictive nature of the grounds for  detention.

It should be noted that Tsarukyan was charged under part 2 of Article  154.2 (bribery of voters) of the RA Criminal Code. The day before,  the defense stated that it considers the court's decision regarding  the satisfaction of the investigator's motion to arrest Tsarukyan for  a period of two months unreasonable and illegal, noting also that  this decision will be challenged.