Regarding the published recording of the conversation between the former chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Ruben Vardazaryan and the acting chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Gagik Jhangiryan, there is an opinion that the conversation was of a private nature, it was recorded illegally.
Meanwhile, the inviolability of private life in the sphere of private communications, as Artashes Khalatyan, the former head of the Civil Registry Office, noted during the discussion with Factor, allows to limit the disclosed behavior to other members of the society. After all, each of us does not display the same behavior in the private sphere as in the public sphere.
During the “Areresum (Confrontation)” program of Aravot, the founder-partner of Fidelis law firm, lawyer Varazdat Harutyunyan said in connection with this point of view: “The conversation was not private. The conversation may have been in a private place, as the SJC had stated in its statement, around the bread table. But the discussion was about a very practical subject. The parties were negotiating over Ruben Vardazaryan’s resignation. And in exchange for that resignation, Gagik Jhangiryan promised to terminate or make sure that the criminal cases that existed or were expected to take place would not be processed. You know, neither those criminal cases, nor the position held by Ruben Vardazaryan, from which he should have resigned, nor Gagik Jhangiryan, in his role, do not fit into the logic of private conversation.
This is the first. Secondly, Ruben Vardazaryan and his lawyer Aram Orbelyan explained very well that the recording was not illegal, as it was made by one of the participants in the conversation.” In this regard, he mentioned the “precedent decisions of the Court of Cassation of the ECHR, which have repeatedly referred to the issue of wiretapping.” “It is not necessary that the wiretapping be carried out through criminal proceedings and be based on a court decision, so that the information obtained from it plays the role of evidence.”
Read also
The other guest of the program, the head of “Amaras” expert center, member of the council of “Homeland” party Arsen Babayan also noticed, “We must take into account that it is during such conversations that people tell the truth, speak as they think. Because it is not a secret that people can say everything in front of the cameras, in any case.” He added, “When these recordings concern them, they always become illegal. But let’s remember the well-known recording that was the basis of Ruben Vardazaryan’s criminal case, which was made by the judge with the permission of the court. A criminal case was initiated on that basis and criminal prosecutions were initiated against Ruben Vardazaryan.” Arsen Babayan referred to the reproaches made in the moral sphere about recording and distributing a person around a table․ “Is it possible to “swallow” a person around the dinner table? Or is it possible to blackmail a person around the dinner table? In other words, you tell the person to resign, otherwise I will put you in the same situation as the Constitutional Court. Does it fit into the rules of the dinner table? Of course not.”
In an interview with the Public TV, the acting chairman of the SJC Gagik Jhangiryan said in connection with those pressures, “When I said it was put on my neck, I meant that it is my mission, it is my calling, not that someone forced me. We are talking about judicial reforms, it is my duty. I have undertaken the process of voluntary reform. I have undertaken it since 1990.” Accordingly, in this interview, Mr. Jhangiryan denied that he had acted in an instructive manner; did he take full responsibility? Mr. Babayan responded to the question, “Was he going to say that Nikol told him?”
Varazdat Harutyunyan noted that this is the whole point of the interview. “Eliminate the suspicions that he acted under orders. That is just nonsense. What does being involved in judicial reforms since the ‘90s have to do with forcing the SJC chairman to resign on the pretext of initiating criminal cases or not proceeding? Where have you seen such judicial reforms? If there is such an international best practice of blackmailing judicial reform, let us adopt it. Maybe Mr. Jhangiryan is innovating; he is a scientist.” Arsen Babayan added, “In any case, Gagik Jhangiryan used to justify himself much better before. I do not know whether it is related to age or other issues, however, now he has started to justify himself very badly. Throughout this interview, he has made many confessions, which must be followed by the response of law enforcement agencies.”
This was particularly in reference to what he said about interfering in the investigation, which Mr. Jhangiryan claims were merely psychological tricks. “We will water this, we will water that, yes, I baited him. How do I know how many jobs there are, one job, two jobs or three? How would I terminate those cases if they are beyond my authority?” According to him, “I was just joking with him, giving him guarantees that he would be calm so that he would know that there would be no criminal prosecution against him. How can he not be ashamed again? I am interested in that,” said Arsen Babayan. And Varazdat Harutyunyan said, “Can you imagine, in all the cases where there are wiretaps, moreover, based on the court sanction or without all the wiretapped people being justified by the Gagik Jhangiryan method, say, we were joking? Can you imagine the extent to which the mockery of criminal justice has reached․․․?”
Anna ISRAELYAN
