Sargssian’s Lawyer Sends Warning to Judge

YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)–If the judge replaces one of the parties in litigation–it is a solid ground for challenging him–the lawyer Oleg Yunoshev–representing Vazgen Sargssian’s legal successor told a new conference August 21.

He assured the journalists that the court will be challenged "if things continue like this." According to the lawyer–the presiding judge Samvel Uzunian committed gross violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of judicial ethics.

Yunoshev denied the accusations brought against him that his petitions hinder the normal course of the trial.

According to him–his goal is getting additional evidence during Nairi Hunanian’s interrogation–which will help the defendant to tell the truth–but they "are disturbed."

The lawyer also said that he was also appointed Aram Sargssian’s representative in a special part of the case concerning possible masterminds and accessories.

Yunoshev believes there are no grounds to the double rejection of his petition for Nairi Hunanian’s being transferred to the Ministry of National Security’s prison.

In his petition–he referred to the data that so far has not been studied by the court and has not been accepted as proof. Among the disregarded information–Yunoshev is attempting to present to the court information proving that Nairi Hunanian started cooperating with the Ministry of National Security as far back as 1988–which was confirmed by a reference on the inspection of the leader of the Union of Armenian Students.

This–according to the lawyer–testifies to at least "a certain interest" in Nairi Hunanian on the part of the Ministry of National Security–which–in turn–"is a solid ground" for transferring Hunanian from the remand prison of the Ministry of National Security.

Yunoshev once again mentioned his petition for the president of Armenia and the minister of national security (now minister of defense) asking that they be called as witnesses.

"During the preliminary investigation they were interrogated–but the bill of indictment did not include their names among those to be summoned to the court.

For uncertain reasons the investigation did not recognize them as witnesses," Yunoshev said.

Yunoshev criticized the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a conclusion is to be provided by an expert–but not by a specialist–whereas the highly experienced psychologist Nadezhda Taraplina–who was invited from Moscow–may only express her opinion–but not make an expert’s report.

The discussions of the issue was–as the lawyer pointed out–"the climax of disrespect."

Yunoshev said that the rejection of his petition for involving in the case Eduard Simoniants–(in 1993-1994 head of Chief Department of National Security)–as a specialist to provide explanations for the activities of the Ministry of National Security was a gross violation of law.

This step testifies that the judge does not wish the present all the facts in the court.

There is no need for President Robert Kocharian and Defense Minister Serge Sargssian to be recognized as witnesses. Also the petition for Eduard Simoniant’s to be summoned to court is not stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure .

Authors

Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

*

Top