0 8000 12 11

On October 22, 2015, the General Jurisdiction Court of RA Ararat and Vayots Dzor marzes, located in Yeghegnadzor, with presiding judge H. Petrosyan, resumed examination of the complaint by Artur Sakunts, legal representative of victim Grisha Khachatryan’s successor Murad Khachatryan. Note that the previous court hearing was adjourned for the investigating agency to express its position on A. Sakunt’s complaint and its supplement. The hearing was attended by victim’s successor M. Khachatryan’s legal representatives, Chairman of HCA Vanadzor A. Sakunts and lawyer at Yerevan Office of the Organization T. Siradeghyan, Levon Yeghoyan, Deputy Head of the 8 Garrison Investigation Department, General Military Investigative Department of the RA Investigative Committee, and Anushavan Harutyunyan, Deputy Military Prosecutor of the Garrison. Referring to the arguments brought by the complainant, L. Yeghoyan stated that the complaint reasonably focused on 2 essential issues: the preliminary investigation did not refute the case version that G. Khachatryan might have been murdered by someone else, and did not substantiate the version that he might have inflicted gunshot wounds to himself by negligence, adding that the version that G. Khachatryan might have been murdered by the other observer Martun Harutyunyan was refuted by the testimonies of witnesses and expert opinion, adding that the experts were unable to provide clear answers to relevant questions. The investigator mentioned that only the testimonies of Vardan Kirakosyan, military base sergeant, stated that the gun was in shot mode and at the same time excluded any links between the inadequate performance of his duties by military base assistant sergeant Aramayis Grigoryan and G. Khachatryan’s death. He also added that under the criminal proceedings initiated on the death cases of 2 other servicemen in the same period, the military unit commander was also brought to responsibility along with a number of other officials. The Court asked some question to clarify the facts mentioned by the investigator. A. Sakunts said that investigator L. Yeghoyan failed to mention in his speech the neglected disciplinary situation at the combat duty. He also said that one cannot put a gun in a shot mode by negligence, since this action required using some physical force. Victim G. Khachatryan’s legal representatives A. Sakunts and T. Siradeghyan motioned to provide the files of the internal investigation relating to G. Khachatryan’s death. In response to this, prosecutor A. Harutyunyan said that the case investigation materials were confidential, but he did not object to the motion. The Court admitted the motion and ruled to adjourn its consideration till revealing the circumstances significant for the motion. Prosecutor A. Harutyunan found that there was no causal relationship between the issues raised by the complainant and G. Khachatryan’s death. While the representatives of victim’s successor M. Khachatryan informed the Court of his psychological state, which made it impossible for him to attend the hearing, the Court ruled to adjourn the hearing to send another notification to the victim’s successor. The next court hearing is scheduled for November 11, 2015, at 2 pm.

See also: hcav.am