Yerevan /Mediamax/. Davit Tonoyan’s defense team issued today the answers of the former minister of defense of Armenia to the questions of media.

- Mr. Tonoyan, how do you assess the draft law on making amendments to the Law “On Military Service and the Status of Servicemen”, which, in particular, proposes to pay 24 million drams and serve 4.5 months instead of 2 years?

- The introduced bill is in line with the “peace agenda” of the government and political authorities. Personally, I and the Ministry of Defense have always spoken against such initiatives.

For me, the regulations proposed by the bill are unacceptable. Serving in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia should be welcomed and encouraged, and not a “ransom” be set for exemption from serving the motherland.

I wonder if there will be transparency regarding the names of people who will pay to free their children from the”deprivations” of at least 1.5 years of service in the armed forces.

- Recently, you and your lawyers have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the judge, but it seems that he will no longer deal with your case.

- First of all, I should mention that 7 court hearings were scheduled after the case was submitted to the court, of which only 4 were held. In general, during the past 8 months, about 8-9 hours of court hearings took place.

Although I am not concerned that the criminal case has been sent to the Anti-Corruption Court, I cannot but record that judge Manvel Shahverdyan was aware that it was subject to the Anti-Corruption Court at least since April 2021, when the corresponding amendment was made to the RA Judicial Code constitutional law.

It is my deepest conviction, that judge Manvel Shahverdyan deliberately and thoughtfully delayed the court hearings during these months in order to “throw” this case off him. As a result, I and the other persons involved in the case remained in custody without any legal basis.

Moreover, by unreasonably delaying the process, the judge did not give me the opportunity to refute the prosecution’s claim that I can put pressure on the witnesses and other participants of the trial. And that is in the event that this far-fetched “concern” is the only “justification” for keeping me in custody for almost a year.