Russian 102nd military base serviceman A. Razgildeyev, who is charged with the murder of Gyumri resident Julieta Ghukasyan, will continue participating in court hearings remotely through video calls.
Julieta Ghukasyan’s legal successor’s representatives, namely, HCAV Chairperson Artur Sakunts and HCAV advocate Hayk Hakobyan declared during the trial presided by the previous judge that they would not participate in court hearings. However, a new judge has been appointed which means that the trial resumes, and the issue of ensuring the defendant’s participation in court hearings is again on the agenda, which is why HCAV representatives resumed their participation.
However, during the court hearing of 24 October 2022, it turned out that the military base management and Razgildeyev again made a petition to participate in the hearings remotely through video calls. HCAV advocate Hayk Hakobyan again presented his objections against the petition and reaffirmed that non-participation of the defendant in the court hearings is a violation of the RA legislation. Further, he noted that the court has to take measures to eliminate obstacles to justice administration in the criminal case, namely, to make a petition to the RA Prosecutor General’s Office to initiate a criminal case against the commander of the Russian 102nd military base, since it is the result of the 102nd military base commander’s illegal conduct (not performing the court’s legal requirement regarding bringing the defendant to court) that the defendant is not brought to court.
During the court hearing of 16 November 2022, the court decided to start the examination of the case not from the beginning, but rather, from the moment it was terminated. And this means that Razgildeyev’s petition is not to be examined, and the case will be examined in the procedure by which the previous judge examined it.
Based on this, HCAV Chairperson Artur Sakunts and HCAV advocate Hayk Hakobyan again decided to terminate their participation in court hearings until those violations are eliminated. They presented this position to the court, mentioning that they will continue protecting the legal interests and rights of the victim’s legal successor.