WHERE WAS DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION WHEN DESTINIES OF 20 CASES WERE BEING DECIDED?
Support A1+!“If the verdict of “Royal Armenia” was absent among the examined cases regarding Pargev Ohanyan’s activities, then it is absolutely legal”, said Armen Ashotyan, lawyer who represented the case of “Royal Armenia”. “Where were the members of the Justice Board and the Disciplinary Commission when destinies of 20 cases have been decided”, wondered Mr Sargsyan and noticed that the proceeding was commenced by Ohanyan himself after he took up the case of “Royal Armenia”.
Why that case was not involved in the 20 cases which were observed with harsh violations, Ashot Sargsyan commented: “There could be only two reasons, first that case was not involved in the 20 cases, not to make vivid that the persecution was connected with “Royal Armenia” or the Disciplinary Commission examined the case and concluded that Pargev Ohanyan made an unbiased and legal decision”.
The fact that the verdicts of 16 cases among 20 were not appealed either by the prosecutor’s office or by defendants, served ground for Ashot Sargsyan to suppose that Pargev Ohanyan made fair decisions.
