ArmInfo. The Criminal Court of Appeal chaired by Judge Ruzanna Barseghyan on August 4 upheld the measure of restraint in the form of arrest in relation to the former head of the Meghri community of Syunik region, now a parliamentarian of the 8th convocation from the "Hayastan" opposition faction ("Armenia" - ed. note) Mkhitar Zakaryan.
Thus, the court rejected the lawyer's complaint against the decision of the court of general jurisdiction of Yerevan on the selection of arrest as a preventive measure against Zakaryan. As the lawyer Yerem Sargsyan stated, the defense intends to appeal the decision in the Court of Cassation.
It should be noted that both the former Mayor of Meghri and the Mayor of Goris Arush Arushanyan have been under arrest for almost a month. Zakaryan and Arushanyan are charged under several articles of the Criminal Code. In particular, the former mayor of Meghri was charged with abuse of office and official forgery under part 2 of article 308 and part 1 of article 314 of the RA Criminal Code. On July 13, Zakaryan was arrested for two months on charges. More than seven criminal cases have been initiated against the mayor of Goris - from illegal entrepreneurship to holding illegal assemblies.
On August 2, at the first sitting of the National Assembly of the 8th convocation, the opposition MPs reported a violation of the parliamentary rules of procedure, since Zakaryan and the former head of the Sisian community, Artur Sargsyan, despite the fact that they received a parliamentary mandate, cannot participate in the work of the legislative body, since they remain under arrest ... As the oppositionists stated, parliamentary immunity can be overcome only by the decision of the National Assembly, and not the CEC. Meanwhile, the authorities are countering - Zakaryan and Sargsyan were charged while they were in the status of a candidate for lawmaker, as a result of which the prosecution's petition was submitted and approved by the RA CEC. The day before the lawmakers of the "Hayastan" faction announced during the sitting of the National Assembly that they would appeal to the Constitutional Court in order not only to challenge the results of the election of the speaker, but also to prove the illegality of the deprivation of freedom, despite the immunity.