Grigor Igityan has been charged with using fraud to bilk George and Carolann Najarian out of much of their property. There is no end in sight to the ongoing five year court case. During the past few months the defense counsel has seen to it that the trial sessions are interminably postponed and Judge Zhora Vardanyan has not been able to rectify the matter. Below is an interview conducted with Hrayr Ghukasyan, the Najarians’ legal representative, regarding the deadlocked trial.

- Mr. Ghukasyan, the last trial date of July 30th was postponed for 20 days. What was the reason for this latest delay?

The reason is that 20 days wasn’t sufficient for Kromvel Grigoryan, the lawyer for the accused, to prepare his closing defense statement. This, despite the fact that this was the length of time allotted him to do so.

It will soon be five years that the American-Armenian benefactors, George and Carolann Najarian, have been trying to regain their rights through various means in the Armenian legal system. This entire process has gone through a series of legal twists and turns. Twice, preliminary investigations have ruled to quash the case procedure and on five separate occasions various judicial bodies have thrown out those rulings. The entire mater finally made it to court in 2007 and it has been 18 months now that the court has been reviewing the charges filed against Grigor Igityan.

Scores of witnesses have been questioned, specialists have testified and 17 volumes of related trial documents have been published. All the evidence surrounding the case has been presented and as of May 5, 2008, we entered the stage of closing arguments. Sadly, this phase continues till now. Five or six trial dates never took place because Defense Attorney Kromvel Grigoryan never showed up in court. On one occasion trial proceedings were delayed due to an alleged heart attack suffered by the accused. In a word, the trial isn’t continuing a pace given that the defense is employing all means at its disposal to hinder and delay the proceedings.

What’s the basis for this line of approach by the defense?

During the 18 months of the trail the defense has been provided with all the opportunities to prove and defend its stated positions. The fact remains that the defense has not been able to effectively counter the charges levied against its client. The defense has not called a single witness to testify on its behalf and whatever documentation it has submitted to the court has only served to substantiate the guilt of Mr. Igityan. Their general line of defense, throughout the entire process, has been to defame and slander all involved – the court investigators and judges, the witnesses, the Najarians’ counsel, etc. Rather than presenting anything of material substance, this is what they have been engaged in. Seeing that this superficial farce hasn’t gotten them anywhere the defense has adopted a new approach – to delay the trial in such a way that the entire matter goes on without end.

Is such a conclusion possible?

In theory, yes. In practical terms, however, there are ways to prevent such an outcome. Just take a look at what has been going on. For about three months now we have been embroiled in a phase of legal bickering and debate. In all, only three sides to the matter were to have made statements – the judge, representatives for the plaintiff and the defense. The statements of two have already been duly entered and published. The only one remaining to do so is the defense and it seems that they are avoiding, at all costs, to do so. Developments in the case can proceed along several lines. If the court finds that the defense counsel is maliciously attempting to avoid appearing for scheduled trial dates, the court has the legal right to change the defense attorney.

Given that the trial has dragged on for 18 months, the law clearly specifies that when it comes to changing the defense counsel the court must take into account the complexities of the case and the time already expended. If a change of defense attorney takes place, the new attorney can petition the court to be allowed to re-question all witnesses and reexamine all evidence entered into court for which he wasn’t originally present. In other words, the trial would once again start from scratch. I don’t believe that the court will allow this to happen given that there are certain common-sense deadlines as to how long a trial can last and that these parameters have long since been violated.

In reality, this case could have been concluded in a period of 18 days given that the essential question to be answered by the court was whether Mr. Igityan actually carried out the acts he’s being charged with or not. The two other important questions in the case have already been answered by both the Court of Cassation and the Court of Appeals in 2005 – 2006. That is whether fraud had taken place and whether George Najarian was the injured party. Thus, there is no longer any room for debate as to whether a crime, i.e. fraud, has taken place and whether George Najarian suffered as a result. The only question that remains is the guilt of Mr. Igityan, something that all the evidence clearly substantiates.

The other way to counter the hindrance of justice, and a more realistic method, would be for the court to set a reasonable deadline for the defense to make closing statements. If the defense were to once again fail to show up, the court would then view this as their refusal to make such a closing statement. For the past 6 weeks the defense has allegedly been preparing such closing remarks. It has continuously asked for adjournments and often doesn’t show up in court at all. During the entire five year investigation of this case the defense has failed to refute any of the evidence presented and merely seeks to disrupt the trial proceedings. This is basically a miscarriage of justice which is also punishable under the law.

Don’t you think that all this results from the fact that Igityan was never taken into pre-trail detention? What is the likelihood that he might flee rather than face justice?

Naturally, all these delays stem from the fact that Mr. Igityan hasn’t been in detention during the trial. When it comes to large scale fraud charges, detention is usually called for since the accused faces heavy imprisonment sentences, 4 -8 years. The possibility of serving such a sentence naturally gives cause to suspect that the accused may either flee prosecution or disrupt the course of justice; which is the case here. For some strange reason the accused was never taken into custody throughout the entire pre-trial investigation, even though all the prerequisites for doing so existed.

The accused hindered the process at every step. He was allowed to exert unlawful influence on witnesses and he published newspaper articles slandering the investigators, judges and expert witnesses. The accused wasn’t detained even after the judge, in his remarks to the court, requested that Mr. Igityan be sentenced to five years imprisonment. Given these conditions, it’s logical to assume that the accused is a flight risk

Today, the chosen method to avert such flight is that the accused sign an affidavit testifying that he will not abscond. This method has no surveillance teeth and it is a cause for concern. Even though the accused is obligated to give advance warning to the court if he plans to leave his place of residence, there are no inspection mechanisms in the law to see that he does so. Clearly, the fact that the accused is not under detention serves to hinder the court proceedings.

It’s hard to imagine that if found guilty the accused will be sitting at home comfortably waiting for court officers to arrive and say -by the way, you’re going to be locked up for 5 years. Given this, we can’t understand the position of the judge who has also commented as to the guilt of the accused. We must take into account the fact that the accused individual has executed fraud on a massive scale, has constantly sought to delay trial proceedings and thus hinder the course of justice.

Now everything rests with the court. To see that justice is done, that the guilty party is punished and the Najarians’ property is returned, there remains one alternative as defined by the law. Taking into account the weight of the crime, the only method to insure that the accused doesn’t flee is that he be physically detained. No one has done any thing different to either execute the law or to punish the guilty party for one simple reason; in the execution of the law the accused, other than having the right to defend himself in court, sees no other advantage other than to use that right in order to delay the proceedings and disrupt the normal course of justice.

If the law isn’t applied it will not be able to have a sentence passed, for the seizure of property or for compensation to be given to the Najarians for losses incurred. As proof of this, just look at what is taking place today. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that their final intention would be to take flight if nothing results from all their actions.

Given the history of all that has occurred, is it safe to assume that Mr. Grigor Igityan enjoys the backing of some powerful allies?

If we compare the simplicity of the case, from a legal point of view, and the irrefutable evidence presented against him, with the 5 years of perpetual delays of the court case. We come to the conclusion that this couldn’t be a normal, objective state of affairs. Such cases aren’t scrutinized for five long years. More complex cases have been concluded in less time than this. Naturally, there is a subjective factor at work here, a subjective influence and intervention. Just the fact that after the refusal to have a criminal case instated both the presiding judge and later the courts spoke out to have the refusal overturned, the case was quashed nevertheless points to the intervention of powerful influences.

We have more than enough evidence to suggest that indeed not only are certain individuals backing the accused but that they have actively intervened in the proceedings. Otherwise the Najarians and others raise the question as to ultimately just how much time the Armenian judicial system requires to punish an individual responsible for such massive fraud and to have their property returned. Today, the answer to this question is – more than five years. I don’t believe that this is acceptable, that it is a reasonable timeframe or that such period of time is suitable for the judicial system of any given nation.

I also attribute not arresting the accused, as a means of detention, as resulting from such influences. In any event, such a force has first seen fit to attempt to keep the accused from facing responsibility for his actions and afterwards, from being imprisoned. Given the overwhelming preponderance of irrefutable evidence presented to the court, I don’t believe that anything is dependent of them today. It is for this reason that they have resorted to the cheapest option available – not to show up in court, to make believe that they are sick and, rather than refute the charges, to write threatening letters to the President and the government stating that if the letter of the law is applied in their case they will petition the European Court, etc. This is the modus operandi of the swindler and has been present throughout the proceedings of this court case.

The conduct of the defense counsel has also been quite ugly regarding the institution of the court itself. For example, at the last session the defense attorney was obliged to show up and state that the allotted time wasn’t sufficient for him to prepare closing statements and to request additional days to do so. However, on the day before the session in question he informed the court about his planned absence in writing. Kromvel Grigoryan didn’t even have the courtesy to appear in court on that day and publicly make his request. We have been witness to several such occurrences which simply show contempt for the institution of the court.

What steps are you planning to take to extricate yourselves from this state of affairs?

The Najarians have already concluded that they have expended more than enough time on the mater. They have never pursued the objective of seeing punishment meted out to anyone. It has all been a matter of having their rights reinstated and their property returned. Today however, when the process has reached the level of interminable postponements and ruses, we have the legal foundations to demand much more. If this senseless circus continues we will pursue the demand of having Igityan locked up since this charade is being orchestrated by him. It is clear to all that Igityan himself is responsible for the delaying tactics of the defense counsel. There is also another set of issues relating to full compensation of losses incurred which we haven’t as yet raised.

This just doesn’t involve the return of the properties swindled from the Najarians but also their expenses incurred during these past five years. For example, for the past four years those buildings, having not been properly maintained, are nearing a state of near collapse. In addition, there is proof that Igityan, in addition to fraudulently taking possession of the Najarians’ property, also extracted huge sums of money from them allegedly to pay off contractors. It turns out however that the money never made it to those contractors. Furthermore, there are the expenses incurred by the Najarians to travel to Armenia in order to give testimony and the various legal fees involved. Thus, if they continue to abuse our patience we might possibly present these demands in court as well. These demands have their legal basis, are documented and cannot be refuted in court.