Grigor Igitian is accused of misappropriation of American-Armenian benefactor George Najarian's property.

The hearings of the case are taking place in the court of first instance of Kentron [Center] and Nork-Marash districts, and the trial has been continuing since March.

After the interrogation of witness Eduard Korkotian, Gurgen Melikian, the Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Studies of Yerevan State University testified in court. Later, representative/lawyer of the injured party petitioned the court to change the procedure of investigation of evidence and to invite architect Grigor Nazarian as a witness during the next judicial session. The latter is aUScitizen and he was inYerevanduring the time in question. Although the defendant's attorney protested, the court granted the petition, “taking into consideration the fact that the bodies of preliminary investigation have not managed to interrogate G. Nazarian. Meanwhile, he was directly related to the construction of the buildings and spent on relevant expenditures.”

Nazarian's interrogation began on May 18. As with two previous witnesses, some of the questions addressed to Nazarian by the defendant's attorney were of an accusing nature. Judge Zhora Vardanian rebuked these questions, qualifying/describing them as “a measure for exerting pressure on the witness and for gaining advantageous testimony.” During this period, Vardanian rebuked a few dozen of the attorney's questions addressed to witnesses on grounds that they were of repetitive nature and were not relevant to the accusation. Moreover, such questions were voiced, which were described by the judge as “ones of unserious level.”

Nevertheless, we would like to note that at the beginning of his interrogation, Nazarian informed the court of his intention to leaveArmeniain two weeks. Taking into consideration this fact, Vardanian appointed the next hearings on May 23 and May 24. However, the May 23 hearing did not take place, due to the absence of Kromvel Grigorian, the defendant's attorney.

With respect to this, during the May 24 hearing, Najarian's lawyer Hrayr Ghoukassian stated: “Judicial sittings have been numerously postponed, due to various half-reasonable and, sometimes, absurd reasons, at the initiative of K. Grigorian, such as participation in an interrogation in another case, a week-long absence from Armenia, participation in a seminar in Tsakhkadzor, “high temperature” of the defendant present during the courtroom session, etc.

Due to such actions of the defense, only two witnesses have so far been interrogated during the trial, which has lasted for about 2.5 month. This evidently indicates the unhidden intention of the defendant and his attorney to artificially delay the trial and turn it into “an eternal one.” I think that such behavior is rather conditioned by the phenomenon that, not being arrested, the defendant is abusing the humanitarian attitude of the court towards him, although there have always been more than enough grounds in the criminal case for his arrest.”

Taking this into consideration, Hrayr Ghoukassian asked the court to “immediately take measures for preventing the irresponsible and destructive actions of the defense, as well as for securing the normal process and appropriate resolution of the criminal case's investigation.”

Four baseless challenges during one judicial sitting

The trial restarted on June 1. Hrayr Ghoukassian informed the court that Nazarian leftArmeniafor theUSand submitted a copy of his airplane ticket.

He also said that victim George Najarian arrived inYerevanfrom theUSand petitioned the court to start the latter's interrogation.

The court granted the petition.

First, Kromvel Grigorian, the defendant's attorney, questioned the authenticity of the ticket's copy and petitioned the adoption of a decision to bring Nazarian to court, since his interrogation had not been finished. Otherwise, according to the attorney, “G. Nazarian's testimony can not be used as a basis of the accusation.”

The Judge rejected this petition, saying that “G. Nazarian, being the citizen of another country, had no any obligation to stay in Yerevan for an extended period of time; he was already interrogated during two judicial sittings, while the defendant's attorney addressed questions to him during a whole working day. Thus, the court may come to a relevant conclusion, by comparing the evidence present in the case.”

Attorney K. Grigorian also protested against the court's decision to change the procedure for investigation of evidence and the interrogation of the victim, qualifying it as the judge's capricious behavior. The defendant's attorney voiced the challenge to chairing judge Zhora Vardanian.

The court rejected the challenge, noting in the decision that the change was made only taking into consideration the interests of the case and with the aim to conclude the trial in a reasonably amount of time.

“The court also took into consideration the fact that both Nazarian and Najarian are US citizens, where they reside permanently, and that they are inArmeniaonly due to circumstances and cannot stay inArmeniauntil the conclusion of the trial,” Zhora Vardanian stated.

The defendant's attorney expressed his objection also against this decision, but his protest was again rejected.

George Najarian spoke in English. To provide interpretation Artashes Emin submitted to the court a copy of the Private Entrepreneur's certificate of state registration certifying his interpreter's activity, as well as the list of members of the International Union of Simultaneous Translations, in which his name was also included.

This time, Kromvel Grigorian voiced a challenge to the interpreter, since the latter, according to the attorney, did not submit a document certifying his qualification, issued by the Ministry of Justice.

The challenge was rejected and the interrogation of the victim began. As soon as George Najarian said that he will leave Armenia on June 5 and that does know when he will return, the defendant's attorney again submitted a petition: “I know that after the prosecution's questions they will show us a copy of a ticket, indicating that the victim is no longer in Armenia, as was the case with G. Nazarian. We have summoned witnesses. We will refer to the victim's interrogation after the summons' completion.”

“The court decided to reject attorney Grigorian's petition, to start the victim's interrogation the same day and continue it on June 4, under which conditions the defendant's attorney will have the opportunity to find out from the victim the answers to questions presenting interest to him. The court cannot foresee in advance that the interrogation is not completed on June 4,” Vardanian said and added that it will possible to determine the further course of actions only after the interrogation's completion.

The defendant's attorney again voiced a challenge to the chairing judge, explaining it as follows: “At this moment, the defense has 12 pages of questions. And, naturally, we will not manage to address them to the victim, since 3 judicial sittings will be required. The chairing judge is trying to deprive us of the right to interrogate the victim, like in the case with Nazarian. In other words, instead of protecting the interest of law, he is supporting the prosecution.”

Later, Grigorian voiced challenge to the chairing judge for the third time.

“The grounds for the challenge have not changed anyhow. It becomes evident that the defense intends to delay the trial in such way,” the judge noted and decided not to refer to the challenge.

At last, Najarian's interrogation continued. When came the turn of the defense to ask questions, the defendant's attorney asked for time to prepare for the interrogation. The court granted the petition and the judicial sitting restarted on June 4. During this sitting, the defense asked questions to George Najarian for around seven hours. And, the latter also got his portion of Grigorian's judgment. Specifically, the attorney questioned the reliability of the victim's testimony. The judge immediately rebuked him, noting that the right to judgment is provided only to the court.

The next sitting of the trial will take place on June 12.