VIOLATIONS ARE GROUNDLESS, INVESTIGATION – A WASTE OF TIME

Support A1+!

Hayk Alumyan, Pargev Ohanyan's advocate, the judge of First Instance Court of Kentron-Nork Marash Communities, announced at thehearing of the RA Justice Board that the Disciplinary Commission carried out the investigations with rude violations of the law and examined those cases which limitation periods were expired, or examined verdicts which came into force legally and were not appealed by Appeal or Cassation Courts.

Hayk Alumanyan announced that the verdicts of 16 cases among 20 came into force legally. Thus, the Disciplinary Commission took up the competences of Appeal and Cassation Courts and carried out the “investigations” with violations.

One of the members of Disciplinary Commission Tumanyan did not use the word “examination” but verification, thus, confessing that they carried out not the examination but the verification of judge’s activities, which the Disciplinary Commission was not competent to do.

Hayk Alumanyan also announced that the Judicial Department carried out briefing of judicial practices and its investigation in compliance with law on 27 March – 19 April in 2007, while the verdicts of June and July months of 2007 were examined. This, prompted Hayk Alumyan to conclude that no violations of law were revealed, and later the necessity to hold new examination arouse, in the result of which violations were “discovered”.

According to Alumanyan, the Disciplinary Commission carried out the investigation without mediation. By the way, Pargev Ohanyan noticed in his speech that they shouldn’t have taken disciplinary proceedings against him, and then carried out examination. First they should have discovered breaches, and then demanded to take disciplinary proceedings and then only apply to the Court demanding the cases.

Hayk Alumyan offered to bring all concrete cases in which violations were found to Court and prove the guilt of the judge.

Answering to Alumyan’s questions, Arshak Khachatryan, member of Disciplinary Commission who read the report of the Commission had to admit that they violated the period of “examination. Answering to the question what made them write in the observation that the judge made obvious and harsh violations, Arshak Khachatryan noted: “We wouldn’t write, if they weren’t obvious”. Pargev Ohanyan tried to justify himself, reflected on the deficiencies of the first four cases. He also reflected on those judicial gaps, which allowed judges make various decisions for similar cases.

He also noticed that the members of the Board were carrying out an order and reminded that judges carried responsibility when the commission of ethics noticed obvious violations of Judicial Code, which was not proved in this case. According to him, he had made only one violation of ethics which he preferred not to talk about. Pargev Ohanyan refused to talk about the document which was without a signature and no date was mentioned on it.

Hayk Alumyan suggested inviting the employee of the Judicial Department, who mediated in taking a disciplinary proceeding against Pargev Ohanyan.

The Court hearing will continue after lunch.