The defense attorneys of the defendants within the criminal proceeding initiated in connection with the fact of terrorism and preparation for the usurpation of power by the leaders and participants of the movement called "Sacred Struggle" in recent days, and sent to court for examination on the merits, without waiting for the decision on the examination of evidence in the order and sequence established by the Court within the framework of the procedure established by law, using public platforms and mass media,  have begun to publish individual fragments of evidence obtained within the criminal proceeding, and to present their one-sided opinion and analysis on the significance of this or that evidence for the case.

Moreover, the defense, clearly aware that the order of examination of evidence in the main hearings and the list of evidence subject to examination are discussed and resolved by a decision made by the court, ignoring the requirements of the criminal procedure law, they have turned public platforms into "small trials", where not only there are no parties representing opposing interests, but they themselves discuss the issues of admissibility, credibility, and relevance of this or that evidence, and ultimately resolve issues regarding the factual circumstances attributed to the accused, the illegality of the act, the commitment of that act by the accused, and the proven guilt.

Particularly puzzling is the uncomplaining and unyielding procedural behavior of defense attorney Hovhannes Khudoyan, who has been selflessly and persistently trying to find the real targets of Bagrat Galstanyan's statement about "shooting under the walls and providing compensation to families," in one case attributing it to "deserters," in another, to "drug dealers," "team mates," and so on.
First of all, it is welcome that the defense has finally admitted that the person conducting the conversation in the recording is Bagrat Galstanyan, regarding which they previously had a different opinion and position, perhaps from the perspective of defense tactics.

At the same time, it should be noted that any speech regarding the permissibility of taking people's lives or using violence against them with weapons behind closed doors should be unacceptable for any law-abiding person, especially for a clergyman who carries spiritual values, therefore, in this regard, the defense can continue with the same diligence and enthusiasm the search for further targets of Bagrat Galstanyan's intention to deprive people of their lives by using weapons, which in no way diminishes the evidentiary significance of the factual data obtained through criminal proceedings.

We believe that with the same enthusiasm and consistency, the defense side can again cite and analyze factual data obtained as a result of secret investigative actions and recorded in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, indicating the preparation of terrorist acts, which relate to acts of public danger accompanied by the threat of intimidating the population, creating an uncontrollable situation among them, disrupting the activities of public authorities, depriving civilians of their lives, causing heavy or medium gravity damage to health, causing large-scale property damage, and causing other grave consequences.

It is obvious that the defense is trying to influence public sentiment or opinion with such a style of behavior, thereby pursuing the goal of belittling the unique and irreplaceable body of evidence obtained within criminal proceedings, which was obtained exclusively within the framework of proper legal procedures prescribed by law and was rightfully included in the body of evidence proving the guilt of the individuals.

Ultimately, the answer to all these questions can be given exclusively by a final judicial act that has entered into legal force, therefore, we once again urge to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Advocates, treat the participants in the trial with respect and refrain from the impermissible practice of spreading misinformation, and address the actions of the participants in the trial in the ways prescribed by law - through applications, statements, petitions, challenges, objections, or complaints.