VZCZCXRO7751
RR RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHYE #0239/01 0921513
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 021513Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8911
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000239 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2019 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KDEM KJUS COE AM
SUBJECT: AUTHORITIES DROP SOME CHARGES AGAINST LEADING 
OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS AFTER COE-PROMPTED CRIMINAL CODE 
CHANGES 
 
YEREVAN 00000239  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
Classified By: CDA Joseph Pennington, reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Revised Criminal Code articles -- redrafted 
at the behest of PACE co-rapporteurs -- went into effect 
March 24.  At the April 1 session of the "Trial of Seven," 
prosecutors withdrew the Article 300 charge of "usurpation of 
state power" while leaving in place slightly-reduced charges 
of "inciting mass disorders."  The judge also split up the 
"Trial of Seven" case into four separate trial cases for 
future hearings.  If the PACE rapporteurs had believed that 
their negotiated bargain with the GOAM would lead immediately 
to the release of the seven, so far they have achieved 
significantly less than that.  The PACE Monitoring Group met 
in Valencia, Spain, March 30, and was reportedly unimpressed 
according to press reports, but we have no further details. 
END SUMMARY 
 
¶2.  (C) CHARGES REDUCED:  The revised Criminal Code articles 
225 and 300 were enacted by the National Assembly March 18, 
signed by President Sargisan on March 20, and entered into 
force on March 24.  As a result of these changes, prosecutors 
entered a motion to modify the charges against the "Trial of 
Seven" prominent opposition defendants during the latest 
hearing April 1, and the judge approved the motion. 
Prosecutors dropped the article 300 charge of "usurpation of 
state power" (in other words, staging a coup).  The Article 
300 charge had provided for imprisonment from 10-15 years. 
Authorities modified the article 225 charges to drop the 
aggravating factor of "accompanied by murder," reducing the 
potential sentence from that charge from 6-to-12 years in 
prison to just 4-to-10 years. A significant implication of 
this change is that the defendants are no longer accused of 
criminal culpability for the ten deaths.  (COMMENT:  One 
serious objection the PACE rapporteurs had had was that 
authorities had effectively charged the Trial of Seven 
defendants with the murder of those ten people, despite the 
fact that there was no evidence to tie them directly to those 
deaths and there is evidence that at least some of those 
deaths were at the hands of police officers. END COMMENT) 
 
¶3.  (C) QUIRKS OF ARMENIAN JURISPRUDENCE:   Armenian law does 
not provide for consecutive sentencing; all sentences are 
served concurrently.  Therefore, the net result of 
yesterday's modifications to the criminal charges is that the 
maximum sentence that can be imposed has been reduced from 15 
years to 10 years.  Judicial watchers report the typical 
pattern of sentencing in Armenian courts results in sentences 
being notched downward a bit.  For example, if the maximum 
sentence for a given charge is 10 years, prosecutors at trial 
will most often ask the judge to impose an eight-year 
sentence.  The trial judge will then often show his own 
beneficence by actually imposing a six-year sentence, and the 
appeals court will likely notch that back yet further to a 
four-year sentence.  (COMMENT:  It is impossible for us to 
predict whether this pattern will prevail with these 
highly-charged cases.  Moreover, there have been hints -- 
such as Parliament Speaker Hovik Abrahamian's words to the 
Ambassador reftel -- that once the seven have been sentenced, 
the president will be inclined to offer pardons.  END COMMENT) 
 
¶4.  (C) "SEVEN" CASE BROKEN UP:  The judge yesterday also 
subdivided the "Trial of Seven" case into six different 
cases.  The case of Alexander Arzumanian (former foreign 
minister) and Suren Sirunian will continue to proceed as a 
single joint case.  Each of the others will be tried 
individually.  Sasun Mikaelian's case has been transferred to 
the Abovian district court (a town just outside Yerevan city 
limits), as this was where his alleged illegal weapon on his 
weapons possession charge was found.  Shant Harutunian had 
earlier had his case separated from the others while he 
undergoes medical and psychiatric screening. (NOTE:  We have 
meanwhile heard that Harutunian is in good mental and 
physical health, according to independent human rights 
monitors who have spoken with both Harutunian and his 
doctors. END NOTE) 
 
¶5.  (C)  COMMENT:  It was never clear why authorities had 
packaged these seven defendants together, with four of the 
highest-profile opposition defendants, combined with three 
much more obscure opposition-linked figures.  Similarly, it 
is unclear why they have chosen to break this cohort up 
again.  Our guess is that authorities have re-calculated the 
politics of the matter, and have concluded that the "Trial of 
Seven" had become too much of a human rights cause celebre 
both domestically and abroad.  Authorities probably hope that 
the various cases will now be less of a focus for opposition 
activism, public rallies, and international criticism.  The 
seven defendants were probably originally conjoined into a 
single case to support an invented GOAM narrative that they 
represented the central cadre of a plot to depose the 
 
YEREVAN 00000239  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
government.  Interestingly, the other most prominent criminal 
defendant in connection with March 1-2, 2008, former Deputy 
Prosecutor General Gagik Jhangirian, was never folded into 
the Trial of Seven case. 
 
¶6. (C) COMMENT CONTINUED:  These latest developments 
represent incremental improvements to the situation regarding 
these opposition defendants, but are not of themselves 
transformative.   It is an improvement to drop the article 
300 charges; given how badly and vaguely that article had 
been written, authorities had been free to define that crime 
virtually as they pleased.  We never expected the political 
problem of these opposition detainees to be fully solved by 
legal manuevering. These actions seem like modest steps to 
edge the GOAM closer toward a face-saving political solution 
that may be yet to come, and are also intended to satisfy 
PACE enough to avoid Armenia being embarrassed by Strasbourg. 
 
PENNINGTON