The criminal prosecution, arrest and detention of Martun Grigoryan is illegal: Defender

Martun Grigoryan

The criminal prosecution, arrest and detention of former MP Martun Grigoryan, who was a candidate for deputy on the list of the Prosperous Armenia party, is also illegal because the mandatory condition of overcoming parliamentary immunity established by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code has been circumvented. This was noted by Martun Grigoryan's lawyer Arsen Babayan.

He elaborated.

See also: Why was Martun Grigoryan arrested? The Anti-Corruption Committee provided details

"So.

As the ECHR confirmed in the Ekle case, criminal accusation (prosecution) is an autonomous concept and does not require an official paper decision. It begins when a person's situation is "significantly worsened" as a result of the actions of law enforcement agencies.

- The May 11 wiretaps and internal surveillance.

Although these actions are secret and the person may not have known about them, they clearly indicate that the state had targeted him as a person suspected of committing a crime.

On May 24, the investigative body published the wiretap, thus also informing MP Martun Grigoryan.

- The searches of May 22.

This is the turning point. When searches were conducted in the MP’s apartment, office, and car on May 22, his condition clearly and significantly deteriorated. He effectively acquired the status of a suspect, since this suspicion was raised in the very decision to authorize the search. According to the case law of the ECHR, a search is a classic example of a substantial alteration of the situation. Therefore, according to the meaning of the Convention, a de facto criminal prosecution against the MP began on May 22.

Article 96 of the RA Constitution guarantees that criminal prosecution against a deputy may be initiated only with the consent of the National Assembly (except in cases of arrest at the time of committing a crime or immediately after it).

- The fact that the body conducting the proceedings did not formally make a “decision on initiating public criminal prosecution” by August 2 (when the powers of the 8th convocation of the National Assembly were terminated) is a legal deception.

- The state, well aware of the person’s status as a deputy and the constitutional requirement to obtain the consent of the National Assembly in order to overcome immunity, used a procedural trick: it actually carried out all intensive actions aimed at criminal prosecution against the person (wiretapping, search), but artificially delayed granting official status, waiting for the expiration of the immunity period (August 2).

"The constitutional immunity of a deputy is designed to protect the deputy not only from the word "accused" written on paper, but from the actual machine of state coercion. Since the actual prosecution began on May 22, the Prosecutor General was obliged to apply to the National Assembly for permission to initiate criminal prosecution against the deputy. Failure to do so rendered the entire process illegal."