Contradiction in the testimonies of the victim under the case of the serviceman who committed suicide: preliminary testimonies were disclosed
16:57, June 10, 2017 | News, Own news | Right to Life, Rights of Soldiers/Recruits | Armed Forces
On June 8, 2017 the RA General Jurisdiction Court of Syunik marz (region) carried on examination of the case of Gevorg Khachatryan who committed suicide at a military unit of the RA NSS border guard troops on November 28, 2015.
Note that under the criminal proceedings charges were brought against captain Mher Voskanyan, head of the post (under Articles 364.1(2), 375(1) and 360(2) of the RA Criminal Code), non-commissioned officer Hovik Kalashyan, major of the post (under Articles 364.1(1) and 375(1) of the RA Criminal Code) and conscript serviceman Harutyun Muradyan (under Articles 359(2)(2), 364.1(1) on 2 episodes and 359(3) of the RA Criminal Code).
The court hearing was attended by defendants and their defense attorneys, G. Khachatryan’s successor Hasmik Avetisyan, her representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan office of HCA Vanadzor, and victims Hayk Hayrapetyan and Arsen Antonyan, and prosecutor Sergey Khachatryan.
When testifying, victim’s successor H. Avetisyan said that G. Khachatryan complained several times of his fellow serviceman Harutyun Muradyan in spite of making friends with him. Then she insisted that G. Khachatryan would have never committed suicide unless his self-esteem was hurt and then she answered the questions of the parties.
Victim Arsen Antonyan emphasized in his testimony that G. Khachatryan and defendant H. Muradyan were on friendly terms and used to make friendly jokes. In court he provided testimonies contradicting his testimony given during the preliminary investigation and explained this by the fact that he was depressed after the incident and exaggerated some facts.
In response to the prosecutor’s questions, he said that he gave untrue testimony at the confrontations with H. Muradyan during the preliminary investigation and true were the testimonies provided before and after the confrontation.
And in response to defendants H. Muradyan’s and M. Voskanyan’s defense attorneys’ questions, he said that he feed the officers’ and non-commissioned officer’s pigs voluntarily as he liked agriculture.
The prosecutor motioned to disclose the victim’s pre-trial testimonies pointing to the contradictions. The victim’s successor joined to the motion. The defense party did not consider the contradictions significant.
The Court ruled to grant the motion on disclosing the victim’s pre-trial testimonies. At the court hearing, 2 pieces of the victim’s testimonies were made public. A. Antonyan noted that their contents were true and only specified some facts essential for the case.
Due to the end of the working day, the court hearing was postponed till June 27, 2017 10 am. The Court will resume disclosing A. Antonyan’s testimonies and questioning him at the next hearing.