Your trusted source

The latest statement of Gagik Jhangiryan, the acting chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) overseeing Armenian courts, casts doubt on the legality of the criminal case against opposition activist Avetik Chalabyan, his lawyers said in a statement on Friday.

Chalabyan was arrested on May 12 for allegedly trying to pay students of the Armenian National Agrarian University to participate in anti-government protests in Yerevan. He has denied the charges as politically motivated.

The criminal case against the politician is based on a leaked audio of parts of conversations he and an Agrarian University lecturer had with the chairman of the university student council, Tornik Aliyan. The Investigative Committee claims he was offered 2 million drams in return for ensuring the presence of 2,000 students at opposition protests.

In an interview to the Public TV Company on Thursday. Jhangiryan spoke about the wiretapping of Chalabyan’s phone, suggesting that it was based on a court order.

“Mr. Jhangiryan’s statement calls into question the legality of the prosecution against Avetik Chalabyan. Moreover, it gives grounds to assume that administrative pressure is being put on both the body dealing with the proceedings and the judges," the legal team said.

They cited Article 31 of the law on operative and detective activity which says wiretapping may be conducted in case a man is suspected of committing a grave or especially grave crime. Whereas, Chalabyan is charged with a crime of medium gravity.

In addition, it is also not clear whether Jhangiryan’s statement implies that the court allowed not only to wiretap Chalabyan’s phone, but also to edit the audio recording and provide it to Media News which released it, the lawyers said.

“There are numerous facts in the case which completely refute the assumption that the wiretapping was conducted by a court order, but given the secrecy of the investigation the facts will not be disclosed for now. Nevertheless, we do not exclude that the wiretapping in question was carried out by law enforcement officers, but we rule out its legality," the statement reads.