Lawyer: The Court of Appeals confirms violation of  Mikael  Ajapahyan`s right to defense by  penitentiary institution

ArmInfo. The Armenian Criminal Court of Appeals has recorded a violation by the  penitentiary institution of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan's right to  defense, guaranteed by the Constitution of Armenia and the Criminal  Procedure Code of the Republic, as stated by Ara Zohrabyan, the  lawyer representing the Archbishop. 

According to him, as revealed during the course of representing  Archbishop Mikael, vicious practices are widespread in penitentiary  institutions. "Penitentiary staff examine (censor) documents handed  over by lawyers to detained clients. Moreover, if the handed over  materials, in the opinion of penitentiary staff, are not directly  related to the criminal case, they confiscate them from the  detainee," Zohrabyan wrote on his Facebook page.

The lawyer added that he raised this issue after learning that the  materials he provided to Archbishop Michael had been examined by  penitentiary staff.  Zohrabyan noted that   he has filed a complaint  with the court of first instance regarding this matter. It is  assigned to Judge Masis Melkonyan, who arrested the archbishop. "As  expected from Masis Melkonyan, he found no violations and dismissed  my complaint. Meanwhile, Judge Lusine Abgaryan of the Criminal Court  of Appeals of Armenia upheld the complaint in her decision of October  6, 2025, overturning Judge Masis Melkonyan's decision and confirming  the violation of Mikael Ajapahyan's rights and legitimate interests.  Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has ordered the head of the  Yerevan-Kentron penitentiary institution to take measures to  eliminate the documented violations," the lawyer emphasized.

Zohrabyan also cited several examples from the court's response. The  lawyer specifically pointed out that court  had cited guarantees that  include the defendant's right to unimpeded confidential meetings with  their defense attorney and the right to possess documents and records  related to the criminal proceedings or the protection of their rights  and legitimate interests. "In this context, the Court of Appeal  considers it logical that the lawyer and his client have the right to  protect attorney-client privilege and communicate with each other  freely, whether through correspondence or any other means. The prison  administration and its staff are responsible for providing separate,  unhindered, and private conditions for their interactions," the  court's response stated.  Furthermore, it noted that the  administration and staff of the penal institution didn't have the  authority to inspect the documents that the lawyer provided to his  client, Mikael Ajapahyan.