“To subject advocates Arayik Papikyan, Nina Karapetyants, and Tigran Hayrapetyan to a disciplinary sanction”: Tatevik Grigoryan, a judge at the Court of General Jurisdiction of Ajapnyak and Davitashen Administrative Districts, appealed to the Chamber of Advocates on such a request. During the trial of "Zhirayr Sefilyan and others" case,the advocatesfiled a motion in the court to postpone the trial because NersesPoghosyan, who had been on hunger strike for 25 days, was unable to attend the trial. Yet, Judge Tatevik Grigoryan wanted to continue the case hearing. In response to it,Zhirayr Sefilyan and Nerses Poghosyan sought to leave the courtroom. The judge had to interrupt the hearing, and after the break,the advocates did not enter the room. Judge Tatevik Grigoryan considered this to be adisrespectful attitude towards the court.
Advocate Arayik Papikyan was today reprimanded by disciplinary case No. 17124. The judge of the Erebuni and Nubarashen Court of general Jurisdiction, Artush Gabrielyan filed a motion in the Chamber of Advocates and informed that last year, on September 6, Arayik Papikyan left the court room without any permission of the presiding judge. It took place during the hearings of “Sasna Tsrer” case. During the hearing Arayik Papikyan announced that he was not authorized to attend the hearing without his client’s presence.
He also noted that advocates are subject to an arbitrary approach. Though the metal detector signaled while examining his handbag, the court bailiffs permitted him to enter the court room, while his colleagues, Mushegh Shushanyan and Lusine Sahakyan were not allowed in. The CA Board decided to recognize Arayik Papikyan guilty and to apply a reprimand for his having left the room.
Araik Papikyan was not able to attend the disciplinary hearing due to the heavy workload. He had asked the Board to postpone the hearing, but the latter did not satisfy his request. During today's hearing, its video filming was forbidden.
Advocate Tigran Yegoryan was reprimanded for having left the court room during the trial of “Zhirayr Sefilyan and others” case. Tatevik Grigoryan, the judge of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Ajapnyak and Davitashen Administrative Districts of Yerevan, on October 27, 2017, gave only 30 minutes to Tigran Yegoryan in order he could file a motion of withdrawal, even though he had asked her for three days to do that.
The fefender left the court room. The judge considered this to be a disrespectful attitude and filed a motion in the Chamber of Advocates. In disciplinary case No. 17188of the Chamber of Advocates, the advocate was found guilty on the grounds of violating the requirements of Chapter 4.1 of the Code of Advocate’s Ethics and he received a reprimand.
The decision will be forwarded to the parties within 20 days and it may be appealed to the court.
By the way, during the disciplinary proceedings, video recording was prohibited, and recording was only permitted.
The judge of Erebuni and Nubarashen Court of General Jurisdiction, Artush Gabrielyan filed a motion in the Chamber of Advocates. The reason for his application was that on September 7, 2017, defense lawyer Arayik Papikyan left the court room where the trial of “Sasna Tsrer” cases was held. He had tried to file a motion on the withdrawal of the prosecutors in the case, but at the same time he found it important that other defense lawyers to be present there. Arayik Papikyan also wanted to provide the presence of his client who had been dismissed by the judge's decision.
The parties did not attend the disciplinary hearing of case No. 17128. Defense lawyer Arayik Papikyan had applied to the Board of the Chamber of Advocates to ask for postponing the hearing as he was overloaded with some urgent jobs and could not attend the hearing. Yet, the request had no effect: the Board made a decision to continue the hearing, during which A. Papikyan was reprimanded for violating the requirements of Chapter 4 .1 of the Code of Advocate’s Ethics. It states that in representing a client in pre-trial proceedings and in court, an advocate shall follow civil and criminal procedural codes, the Law on Advocacy, the Charter of the Chamber, the requirements of this Code, as well as other legal acts regulating conduct of trial participants. The obligation to obey these rules does not limit the ability of the advocate to object against the actions of the judge or arbitrator or to exercise other remedial rights. At the same time, the advocate must respect the interests of his client without any fear of his own interests or any consequences that may arise with him or with any other person, while showing proper respect and sympathy to the court. (See at http://www.ccbe.eu/NTCdocument/Armenia_EN_Code_of_C1_1236165221.pdf)
At the Chamber of Advocates the hearing of the disciplinary sanctions filed against 11 advocates, Arayik Papikyan, Nina Karapetyants, David Gyurjyan, Lusine Sahakyan, Ara Gharagyozyan, Yervand Varosyan, Hrant Gevorgyan, Mushegh Shushanyan, Inessa Petrosyan, Ara Zakaryan, Harutyun Baghdasaryan and Tigran Hayrapetyan, was postponed on May 16. Advocate Inessa Petrosyan did not appear on the hearing because of a grief family matter.
A ground for initiating proceedings at the Chamber of Advocates was the decision of judge Artush Gabrielyan of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts of Yerevan of filing a motion on a judicial sanction. At the regular court hearing of "Sasna Tsrer" cases, when the judge returned from the deliberation room, he was presented with the advocates' motion requesting to postpone the trial for providing unhindered participation of missing defender lawyers Mushegh Shushanyan and Arayik Papikyan. They were at the court yard at that moment because the court bailiffs had illegally not allowed them to enter the court room.
Yet, judge Artush Gabrielyan decided that Arayik Papikyan and Mushegh Shushanyan had left the court room, too. By the way, judge Artush Gabrielyan did not appear before the Chamber to give an explanation. He will not appear at the hearings of the Chamber of Advocates, either. The fact that the judge does not appear and his opinion is not clarified is a reason for not having the permission for filming disciplinary hearings of the Chamber of Advocates.
The information on next day and the time of the next disciplinary hearings of the Chamber of Advocates will be available additionally.
This web-site creation was made possible by the support of Counterpart International’s Civil Society and Local Government Support Program and the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International through “Helsinki Associaiton”. Content, views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s), and the responsibility of Helsinki Association and do not necessarily reflect the views of Counterpart Armenia, USAID or the United States Government.”