Judge Armen Danielyan's decision is a mockery of the law: Statement by Samvel Karapetyan's advocacy group

Businessman and philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan's legal team has issued a statement.

"Samvel Karapetyan's defense lawyers were informed of Judge Armen Danielyan's decision by the Criminal Court of Appeal. The significant procedural violations that occurred within the framework of the appeal of Samvel Karapetyan's apparent illegal detention at the Criminal Court of Appeal were addressed in previously submitted statements and it was clearly stated that there is no expectation of justice from the judge with the lowest rating."

We would like to quote an excerpt from the aforementioned judicial act, which refers to the refutation of reasonable suspicion of Samvel Karapetyan's alleged involvement in the act charged: "The Court of Appeal finds that the questions raised are much deeper... which in this case cannot be addressed from the perspective of reasonable suspicion..."

In other words, according to the court, since the questions are “deep” aimed at refuting reasonable doubt, the absence of reasonable doubt is not recorded, but the judicial act is left unchanged, without presenting any substantive legal argument. It is precisely as a result of such “legal” judgments that the professional community does not have any expectations of a fair trial from the said judge, since this is another incitement to legal absurdity, and another piece of evidence that this case is a political persecution. Among other arguments, that there is no data at all related to Article 422 of the Criminal Code in this case, or that the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation denying the accusation were cited, it is noteworthy that the Court, not addressing them at all, did not address the widely discussed issue that the Prosecutor General’s report could not be considered within the framework of reasonable doubt, especially when that report was not even attached to the materials.

Judge Armen Danielyan, without any legal analysis or presentation of arguments, simply stating in the judicial act that the conclusions of the Court of First Instance were allegedly lawful according to an “objective observer”. From a legal point of view, it is a clear indicator of the lack of justice or a mockery of the law that a judge who is clearly subject to challenge, who rejects the motion for challenge, refers to an alleged “objective observer”. It is noteworthy that the reasoning of the judicial act issued by the Judge with the lowest rating of the Criminal Court of Appeal, why Samvel Karapetyan should continue to be detained from June 18, 2025, consists of just two pages, that is, the requirements for the reasoning of the judicial act were not minimally met. At the same time, since it was clear to the professional community what goal was pursued by the Prosecutor’s appeal, it was also rejected.

"The planned procedural actions, including those regarding the aforementioned judge, will be presented next," the statement said.