On August 20, 2025, Judge Armine Meliksetyan decided to extend the period of paramount in Mikael for 10 days on August 15, 2025. This was announced by Archbishop Ajapahyan’s defenders.
“An appellate protest was brought against the mentioned decision, which was adopted by Adfere Ghukasyan, Judge of the RA Court of Appeals on September 8. The judge set the day of the judicial act on September 17.
During the September 2 court hearing, first instance Judge Armine Meliksetyan appointed the next session on September 15, which would probably be the last session.
Today, 19.09.2025, Judge Adfere Ghukasyan’s decision of September 20, 2025, with which the Court of Appeal decided to extend the examination of the protest of the Protesters of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan.
The Court of Appeals shall substantiate its decision to extend the above-mentioned protest investigation into the above-mentioned protest. “Taking into account the overcrowding of the presiding judge from September 15 to September 19, 2012, the Court of Appeals may have extended the day of the Judicial Act in case of the JUD service for 9 days, appointing the judicial act on September 26, 2025.
Such a decision is puzzling for the defense side and causes a number of issues.
1) First, instead of the decision to extend the term, the Court of Appeal may have made the actual decision on the occasion of the Decision. If the court had time to make a decision, to write it and send it to the parties, then why did not make the decision. Especially when, the decision does not write and send the decision, they are satisfied with the decision on the phone, and the parties get the same decision.
2) if it is such a serious obstacle to training, which is currently prolonged by the Court of Appeals, and nothing that the person continues to be in the intact custody, and the Court of Appeals is working on September 17. It writes, signs, seals and sends the parties.
3) Part 2 of Article 392 of the RA Criminal Procedure shall establish that the terms provided for in that article may be extended by the decision of the Court of Appeal, not more than five, ten and for twenty days, respectively.
The question arises as to how the requirement to be substantiated is inspected when it is not included in the list of appealed acts. However, it is obvious that being in training cannot be a good reason to not defend and postpone the protest on the right of a person’s freedom.
4) The court session was scheduled for the first instance court on September 15, when it was possible that the investigation of the case would be completed. In this regard, September 17, the initial set of the initial Court of Appeal seems to be so dangerous. However, when the case was not completed in the Court of First Instance, the next session was scheduled for September 22, the Court of Appeals decided on September 17 to prolong the protest against detention.
This allows the defense to be a reasonable conclusion that the actions of the courts are agreed, and the Court of Appeals is waiting for the Court of First Instance.
For the defense side, this is another signal that the judicial review is of a formal nature, and the Court of Appeal is openly avoiding fulfilling its mission. “
