The appeal filed against the pretrial detention of Aregnaz Manukyan, a member of the executive board of the Mother Armenia party, has not yet been assigned to a judge. More than a week has passed since the first-instance court issued its ruling, but it has still not forwarded the case materials to the Court of Appeal, attorney Tatevik Soghoyan said, according to Pastinfo.

She stated that the entire accusation is based solely on assumptions, which, in her view, cannot constitute sufficient grounds for bringing criminal charges.

Soghoyan explained that the appeal challenges both the existence of reasonable suspicion and the legal grounds for detention. The defense has requested that the detention order be overturned and the prosecution's motion dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable suspicion exists. According to the defense, there is no factual evidence confirming that the alleged act was committed by Aregnaz Manukyan.

Regarding the grounds for detention, the first-instance court concluded that there was a risk of obstructing the proceedings. However, Soghoyan argued that this justification is also unfounded, although she said she could not disclose further details.

She also described as concerning the first-instance court's decision to restrict Aregnaz Manukyan's visits, including meetings with her minor child.

"We have informed all the competent authorities about this. When issuing its decision, the first-instance court was fully aware that there was a minor child involved, yet it provided no justification whatsoever as to why the mother should not be allowed to communicate with her child. Ms. Manukyan personally raised this issue with the Human Rights Defender's Office, and the statement issued by the Ombudsman's Office shows that the Human Rights Defender has also appealed to the competent authorities, presumably the Prosecutor's Office, asking them to reconsider at least this part of the preventive measure. It is obvious to them as well that this restriction harms not so much Manukyan as her daughter.

"In this case, the instruments of criminal procedure go beyond the logic of a preventive measure and become not only a punitive mechanism but also, to some extent, a mechanism of inhumane treatment toward people who have no procedural status whatsoever in this case and are in a vulnerable position, particularly the minor child," she said.

Asked whether it had been conclusively established what alleged classified information is at the center of the charges and whether it actually constitutes a state secret, Soghoyan replied that the defense is convinced no such situation exists. However, she said they are currently unable to discuss the matter because it is itself protected as a state secret.

According to the prosecution, Aregnaz Manukyan passed information from a closed session to Andranik Tevanyan. The defense, however, said no evidence of such a transfer exists. Moreover, according to Soghoyan, Manukyan is not even certain whether she was physically present at the session in question.

"She does not even remember that, let alone saying that she identified certain information as confidential, separated it out and passed it on. She says that it is questionable whether she possessed the information in question at all during that period," Soghoyan said.