“EU Mission Chief Expresses Concern Over Armenian Prime Minister’s Detention: Fears of Political Motives and Unfair Judicial Proceedings”
The Head of the European Union mission has expressed concern about the detention of Armenian Prime Minister Arman Ashotyan in connection with my recent letter.
On his Facebook page, AH party leader Mr. Movsesian wrote, “In recent months, I have closely followed the actions of the ruling coalition, including Prime Minister Arman Ashotyan, and I have informed all my international partners about the violations that have been committed.”
In the letter, I have highlighted the important issues related to the activities of the government.
Baseless accusations. Arman Ashotyan has been accused of embezzlement in connection with the distribution of funds for elections without any conclusive evidence or received financial resources. For example, one of the legal acts confirms the absence of a foundation for accusing him of embezzlement in connection with the distribution of funds.
Judicial hearings were biased. The judicial process against Ashotyan has been unfair, even the injured party pointed out that there was no evidence of his involvement in the violations during the mentioned period.
Resolution of the victim’s claims. The victim’s representative, who recognized the legitimacy of Ashotyan’s defense, the Yerevan State Medical University, resolved the issue of assigning the case to Ashotyan until a new investigation was conducted.
Unfounded criminal prosecution. Ashotyan’s prosecution is not based on solid grounds, as there are no reports of any investigations carried out by the competent authorities.
The political backdrop. It is evident that the prosecution of Arman Ashotyan has political motives, as it coincides with the recent controversial trial of Nikol Pashinyan’s residence address.
I urge my colleagues to actively support the protection of political freedom in Armenia.
Regards, Tikin Mari Pechinovich Burych.
Acknowledging receipt of my letter, Mr. Movsesian, has written, “Even the independent actions of the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny, and we must be aware that we have received the provided information.”
