Judge’s letter did not help to hold a public hearing either

Even the judge’s letter did not help to hold the hearing of the Chamber of Advocates publicly.

The Board was discussing the issue of subjection to disciplinary sanctions against advocates Arayik Papikyan, Mushegh Shushanyan and Tigran Hayrapetyan. The judge of the trial of “Sasna Tsrer”, Artush Gabrielyan appealed to the Chamber.

Arayik Papikyan presented a note in the disciplinary hearing, according to which the judge of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction Arshak Vardanyan, did not object that the hearing of the disciplinary sanction could be held publicly, although the lawsuits had not been held within his presiding trials; yet he gave his agreement on holding the Board’s hearing publicly.

Arayik Papikyan mentioned that he appealed to the Yerevan court of general jurisdiction rather than to Arshak Vardanyan. He recalled that a member of the Board, Sedrak Asatryan had stated before that it was an elementary knowledge to know that the applicant for disciplinary proceedings was the court, but not the judge. “The true subject is the court, not the judge. I appealed to the court, but I received a response from the court, signed by Arshak Vardanyan,” said Arayik Papikyan.

By the way, Karen Sardaryan, chairing person of the hearing, stated that the word “publicly” did not mean to make its video filming.

Arayik Papikyan left the room as no video filming was permitted. After that, the Board of the Chamber decided to subject Arayik Papikyan, Mushegh Shushanyan and Tigran Hayrapetyan to reprimand.

“The court has made an illegal decision. Before I was subjected to sanctions, two advocates had already left the hearing room. The judge had not done anything when I left the room. Then he went to a consultation room and made a decision for the three advocates. The judge had to go to the consulting room to make a decision. One left, the hearing was continued, the second left, the hearing continued again, and when I left, he decided to go to the consultation room,” recalled Arayik Papikyan.

According to him, Chairman of the Chamber of Advocates Ara Zohrabyan should have seen that there were no grounds for initiating a disciplinary law suit. And at the disciplinary hearing the Board illegally deprived A. Papikyan of the right to give explanations.

“There is a need to make changes in their work; we must just open the dead logic through “autopsy” and diagnose the disease correctly,” said Arayik Papikyan.

According to him, a month ago the Board told him that the court was the subject, and now they said that the court was not the subject, but the subject was the judge. “What revolutions took place in the minds of Board members a month later, I cannot say.”

The disciplinary decision will be appealed in court. “Let them be prepared to pass through upcoming trials. The Board has adopted a decision that all those advocates who do not share the same opinion with them and have their own opinions have definitely to be punished. The behavior of the Board and the behavior of the management of the Chamber testify one thing: if the opinion does not coincide with their position, then by the chairman’s definition we are oppositionists. Why we are oppositionists, probably because of the simple reason that we do not obey their rules,” concluded Arayik Papikyan.