Video

Գլխավոր դատախազ Աննա Վարդապետյանի ղեկավարությամբ խորհրդակցություն՝ Երևան քաղաքի դատախազությունում

5 Vazgen Sargsyan street 0010 Yerevan Republic of Armenia

Tel: +374 (10) 511-650

E-mail: info@prosecutor.am

 

Responsible for ensuring freedom of information

The RA Prosecutor’s Office Division of Public Relations, head of the Division – Arevik Khachatryan

01.02.2022 | Clarification

The RA Prosecutor's Office, guided by Article 51, Part 7 of the RA Judicial Code, has refrained from publishing anything regarding Boris Bakhshiyan, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Syunik Region. But, taking into account that this issue has become a subject of wide discussion in the result of the publications not corresponding to reality made by the lawyers connected with the Judge Boris Bakhshiyan, the RA Prosecutor's Office considers it necessary to clarify the following.

 

Sufficient factual information was obtained at the RA NSS Investigation Department that one of the defendants, N. M., in the criminal case investigated by Boris Bakhshiyan, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Syunik Region, gave a confessional testimony during the preliminary investigation that he was persuaded to change his testimony.

 

After accepting the mentioned case into proceedings, appointing a court hearing, opening the first court session, Judge Bakhshiyan found out that two of the 7 defendants did not appear at the court session, including N. M. and their defense attorneys. N. M.’s defense attorney informed the court writing that he did not appear in the case because he had a very urgent case, he had previously informed N.M. about it, and the latter did not want to be present at the court hearing without his defense attorney.

 

In such circumstances, when the continuation of the court session in the absence of the defendants and defense attorneys was inadmissible he discuss the issue of changing the measure of restraint imposed on N.M. Hearing the positions of the parties that there is no reason to use detention as a measure of restraint, discussing the issue of the precautionary measure implied against N. M. in the absence of him and his defense attorney with such reasoning violates the competition of the parties, equality of arms, the judge made a decision on changing the measure of restraint chosen against N. M. and detaining him.

 

Moreover, Judge Boris Bakhshiyan did not discuss the issue of imposing a court sanction on the non-appearance of other defense attorneys, who did not appear at the court hearing for such a reason postponed the discussion of the issue of imposing a court sanction on him in order to hear him. So, Judge Boris Bakhshiyan apparently detained N. M. without any grounds, without providing him with the right to be heard, postponing the discussion of the issue of applying not so severe coercive measure to another parties in the same session.

 

Boris Bakhshiyan admitted in the Supreme Judicial Council that he had never made such a decision to detain a person in similar conditions.

 

The criminal case also revealed that after being apparently illegally detained by Judge Boris Bakhshiyan and transferred to a criminal penitentiary institution, N. M. was forced to refuse to testify by an organized group. He was released by Judge Boris Bakhshiyan, who refused to testify and answer questions at the same hearing, declaring only that he had not been unlawfully influenced.

 

As for the defense attorney's argument that Boris Bakhshiyan was prosecuted when the prosecutor's office did not appeal his obviously illegal decision, it should be noted that the defense attorney received sufficient clarifications on the issue at the session of Supreme Judicial Council, thus the public statement made with the same motives is manipulative.

 

Judge Bakhshiyan's apparently illegal decision was not appealed by the prosecutor's office, as it had already been appealed by N’M's defense attorney, which was a sufficient basis for reviewing its legality and validity in the Court of Appeal. There, the prosecutor would assert the position expressed in the court of first instance that the arrest of N. M. was obviously illegal. However, after the release of N. M., the mentioned complaint was withdrawn from the Court of Appeal.

 

The RA Prosecutor's Office continues to refrain from publishing more information on the proceedings against the judge, the facts, urging his colleagues to refrain from presenting the facts factually distorted or unilaterally interpreting a publicly directed, biased opinion.

 

At the same time, we consider it necessary to note that in the absence of absolute information about the grounds of the proceedings, making allegations of its illegality, lack of grounds, qualifying the proceedings as interference with the judge's activities is not adequate to legal community.

 

 

Notice: Every person suspected in or charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent unless proved guilty in the manner prescribed by the RA Criminal Procedure Code and unless the verdict comes into legal force.