Ex-chief of Constitutional Court's staff claims in official testimony that controversial notice 'was submitted to parliament on March 2'

As part of the criminal probe targeting Arsen Babayan, a former deputy head of the National Assembly's staff, the law enforcement authorities have interrogated Arushan Hakobyan, a former chief of staff at the Constitutional Court of Armenia, Hraparak.am reported on Tuesday.

On March 2, 2018 Hakobyan himself submitted the notice on terminating the authority of Gagik Harutyunyan, the former president of the top court.

Babayan at the time was the person with ex-officio responsibility for handling the entire documentation. The Special Investigative Service (SIS) evaluates the violation of the assigned three-day time-limit as an act subject to prosecution, considering Arsen Babayan responsible for committing official frauds in support of group interests ″individually, as well as in collaboration with employees not having the status of officials″. A probe was initiated under Section 1, Article 300 of the Criminal Code (Usurping State Power).

Earlier, Ruzanna Arzumanyan, the head of the National Assembly's General Department, had faced interrogation. After receiving the document on March 2 (Friday), she did not immediately register it in the system, leaving it until Monday (on the grounds that it had been transferred to her at the end of the business day). Yet, Ara Babloyan, the speaker of the National Assembly, had already announced the decision on terminating Harutyunyan's authority.

In an interview with Hraparak.am, Hakobyan said he had been summoned to the SIS on Saturday without any proper clarification as to the criminal case or the reasons.

"They did not say anything regarding the invitation. When I asked them for details to know the reasons in advance, they said it was in connection with a document from the Constitutional Court," he said. 

Q: What did they say at the Special Investigative Service? Did you give testimony?

A: They themselves asked the questions, to which I replied in the form of a testimony.

Q: And what specifically did they say in connection with the notice? You had personally sent it to the National Assembly. When was it?

A: I said in my testimony that I had sent it in person through one of the employees.

Q: How then was the notice entered into the National Assembly's [software] system on [March] 5?

I am not aware of anything. I gave that kind of formulation in my testimony because I had sent the document myself. I am not even aware of either subsequent statements or the actions undertaken … I had absolutely forgotten about that, did not even remember what had happened.  

Q: Do you find that there had been any violation or fraud? If so, what could have been the reason behind that? What could have caused them to mark the date of [March] 5 on the document?

I cannot elaborate on any reasons, occasions or insist on any act of coercion. All I did was just sending the notice. I went to the SIS without even knowing what it was all about.