90 criminal cases were brought before the courts surrounding the events of March b1, 2008. As of today, sentences have been handed down in 87 cases involving 101 individuals of which five have been fully exonerated and eleven partially. In the case of one individual the charges have been reduced. Five were issued with fines, thirty-one were given suspended sentences and the rest were sentenced with imprisonment. These are the figures presented by David Avetisian, President of the Cassation Court’s Criminal Chamber, during a press conference regarding the court cases resulting from the March 1st incidents. He added that, "The picture is more or less the same with other cases not linked to March 1st. Furthermore, the number of those exonerated, either fully or partially, is more in the March 1st cases than in the others." "I have carried out specific analyses and have come to the conclusion that in terms of the execution of penal practice, I see no differentiation between March 1 cases and any other cases," stated Mr. Avetisian. Cassation Court President Arman Mkrtumyan refused to answer question regarding specific cases, especially those related to the "March 1st Seven" trials, arguing that they are still pending in the Court of First Instance and that he had no right to comment on them. As to sending the case of Sasoun Mikayelyan to the jurisdiction of Kotayk Marz, Mr. Avetisyan commented that, "On deciding the jurisdictional matter of the case the scene of the crime was taken into account. In the case of Sasoun Mikayelyan, the charges brought against him, that is possessing illegal arms subsequent to March 1, took place in Kotayk Marz. Had the decision been taken to try the case in the Kentron and Nork-Marash Court of First Instance, our government would be facing a problem if the case was brought before the European Court because there was a jurisdictional violation." According to Mr. Avetisyan, the splitting up of the "March 1st Seven" court case was due to its complex and exhaustive nature and that the court reserves the right, based on Article 28 of the RoA Criminal Judicial Code and various European Court precedents, to define a commonsense time frame to complete trial examinations and a limit on holding people in custody and to divide up the case to ensure a multi-sided investigation of the evidence.