0 8000 12 11

On January 14, 2016, the General Jurisdiction Court of Ararat and Vayots Dzor Marzes (Regions) of the RA, in its Yeghegnadzor residence, presided by judge H. Petrosyan, resumed the examination of the appeal by Artur Sakunts, representative of victim’s successor Murad Khachatryan, on the case of serviceman Grisha Khachatryan’s death. Note that the previous court hearing of this case was adjourned for the aggrieved party to get familiar with the files of the official investigation within the case.

The court hearing of January 14, 2016 was attended by Chairman of HCA Vanadzor A. Sakunts and Organization lawyer Tatevik Siradeghyan, representatives of victim’s successor M. Khachatryan, Levon Yeghoyan, Deputy Head of the 8 Garrison Investigation Department, General Military Investigative Department of the RA Investigative Committee, responsible for the investigation, and Anushavan Harutyunyan, Deputy Military Prosecutor at the Garrison.

Presiding judge H. Petrosyan stated that the official investigation files provided by the RA Ministry of Defense might contain state and official secrets and therefore obliged A. Sakunts, representative of the victim’s successor, not to disclose the information therein and to sign a pledge on non-disclosure. A. Sakunts tried to find out which files specifically contained state or official secrets and then signed a pledge on non-disclosure.

T. Siradeghyan, representative of the successor to the victim, stated that upon getting familiar with the official investigation files, she found that they were incomplete, since they lacked the order to initiate official investigation and the conclusion following such investigation. T. Siradeghyan also added that at the previous court hearings on examination of the appeal, L. Yeghoyan, responsible for the investigation, had stated that the official investigation resulted in a conclusion that some of the military officers of the unit bore disciplinary responsibility. Hence, T. Siradeghyan motioned to take measures to provide all the files of the official investigation.

The Court found it necessary to announce the note on the official investigation files addressed to the RA Ministry of Defense, requiring that the Ministry provided both the official investigation files and the relevant conclusion.

A. Sakunts, legal representative of the victim’s successor, considered it essential to receive the conclusions following the official investigation and mentioned that the appeal filed with the Court touched upon the violations of the discipline and issued related to proper instructions on the rules of handling arms, and therefore, it was of intrinsic importance to find out the outcome of the official investigation.

Investigator L. Yeghoyan, responsible for the investigation, stated that he was not familiar with the official investigation files. He was only familiar with the secret order, but could not clearly recall whether anyone had been brought to disciplinary responsibility with regard to G. Khachatryan’s death. He also added that the secret order on the case of G. Khachatryan’s death read that the official investigation files were incomplete since preliminary investigation was still in progress. While L. Yeghoyan said that the conclusion was likely to contain similar wording, he left it to the discretion of the Court to rule on the motion.

A. Harutyunyan, Deputy Military Prosecutor at the Garrison, expressed his opinion that the conclusion of the official investigation was consultative in nature and could not contain essential information.

The Court ruled to delay the consideration of the motion submitted by the representatives of the victim’s successor till examination of the official investigation files at the court hearing. Afterwards, the Court passed to examination of the files above.

Upon introducing the official investigation files, the Court considered the motion submitted by the representatives of the victim’s successor and ruled to grant it and require from the RA Defense Ministry to provide the conclusion resulting from the official investigation.

Hence, the examination of the appeal was adjourned and scheduled on February 1, 2016, at 2 pm.