Lousineh Ashoughyan wants her job back at the Vanadzor State Pedagogical Institute and is seeking redress in the courts for what she claims was her illegal dismissal as an instructor.

The Court of First Instance rejected her suit, so Ashoughyan filed an appeal.

The Appeals Court reviewed and accepted the case. The Vanadzor Institute provided its response to Ashoughyan’s suit.

On December 14, Presiding Judge Levon Grigoryan reviewed the identities of the litigants and found that Vano Yeghiazaryan, who showed up as the representative of the Institute, was not authorized to serve in that capacity.

His writ of authorization was only for the lower court. Yeghiazaryan was escorted to a seat in the general hall and the trial continued given that the Institute had been properly informed as to the time and date of the trial.

Despite the fact that Yeghiazaryan was not legally authorized to represent the defendant, Vanadzor Institute, the Appeals Court nevertheless accepted the response he presented to the court on the defendant’s behalf, thus violating Armenia’s Civil Court Procedure Code.

This reporter had also requested that the court permit a tape recording of the session. Judge Grigoryan said that he would review the request after the trial got underway. He never did.

At the end of the session I asked the judge what had happened. His response was, “As I said, if the party were to make such a motion, we would review it. No such motion was made.”

In this case, the party in question was plaintiff Ashoughyan since the defendant was not represented in court.

I still do not understand the judge’s rationale in this matter. Reporters are in court to cover the entire trial process and the arguments of all sides.

Where does it state that one or another side has to make a motion before a reporter can record a judicial proceeding?