Friday, June 19 2020 16:10

ArmInfo.  The decision to change  the measure of restraint against Robert Kocharyan for me personally  was quite expected, the lawyer of the successors to the victims of  the March 1 tragedy Seda Safaryan expressed a similar opinion to  ArmInfo.

"Yesterday's session of the Court of Appeal could not have a  different outcome. There could have been no other decision if the  session is chaired by judge Nikoghosyan, Azaryan or Rshtuni. Any of  these three. In my opinion, these three people act in the interests  of Kocharyan in a teamwork. The goodwill of Judge Arsen Nikoghosyan  regarding the defendant was obviously off the chart. He simply did  not want to listen to the facts testifying not in favor of Kocharyan,  "the lawyer said.

On June 18, the Court of Appeal of Armenia decided to release former  President Robert Kocharian from custody on bail of 2 billion drams.  The court, chaired by Arsen Nikoghosyan, thereby satisfied the  complaint of Kocharian's lawyer Hovhannes Khudoyan, partially  satisfying the complaints of Kocharyan's another lawyer Ruben  Sahakyan. The Prosecutor General's Office intends to appeal this  decision in the Court of Cassation.

In the light of such a bias of the court, Safaryan believes that some  judges in the most cynical way impede the administration of justice  in Armenia and calls on Prime Minister Pashinyan to give an early  solution to this problem. The lawyer estimates the decision to change  the preventive measure against Kocharyan as one of the most brilliant  judicial acts against the law.

The lawyer expressed her conviction of the need to impose punishment  on judges who do not exercise full justice. Safaryan emphasized that  a similar judicial act against Robert Kocharyan cannot have a  justification and anything in common with justice and law a priori.  In this light, the lawyer believes that the time for voicing harsh  assessments of the activities of such judges has definitely come.

"Judge Nikoghosyan's statement about the lack of case materials  during its transfer from the court of first instance also looks  remarkable. According to him, in this light, the Court of Appeal took  up the collection of materials. This expanded the scope of the appeal  discussion of the complaint of Kocharian's lawyers in a. While the  Court of Appeal simply didn't have the right and authority for that.  In this light, I consider it necessary to carefully study the  justification of the act issued by the court in the Kocharyan case.  Judges trampling justice themselves must face the court, they must  answer for actions against the people, criminal law and human rights  throughout the severity of the law, " Safaryan concluded.