0 8000 12 11

On November 24, 2015, the General Jurisdiction Court of RA Ararat and Vayots Dzor marzes (regions), 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 on this case was adjourned to ensure the presence of M. Khachatryan. The haring was attended by victim’s successor M. Khachatryan, his representative A. Sakunts, 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 of the Garrison. The victim’s successor M. Khachatryan joined his representative’s complaint and stated that he had suspicions as to the version of the preliminary investigating body that his son’s death was caused by shots resulted from careless handling of weapon. M. Khachatryan noted that G. Khachatryan was an educated and literate person who entered a higher educational institution on his own, and he found it hard to believe that his son could have handled weapon carelessly. Having heard M. Khachatryan, the Court passed to examination of the available evidence. Afterwards, A. Sakunts, the legal representative of victim’s successor, insisted on the motion filed at the previous hearing and requiring the materials of official investigation initiated by order of the RA Minister of Defense. Investigator L. Yeghoyan, responsible for the investigation, and prosecutor A. Harutyunyan objected to the motion. Particularly, L. Yeghoyan noted that the official investigation into G. Khachatryan’s death was carried out in conjunction with another 2 death cases that occurred at the same military unit shortly before and was considered an official secret. Therefore, he requested the Court to dismiss the motion above. A. Sakunts said that he found it hard to understand how the investigation into G. Khachatryan’s case might have been carried out in conjunction with another case, and the fact that the investigating agency was familiar with such materials of the investigation constituted a violation of the equality and competition principles of the Parties, since the appellant party was not aware of their contents. Upon considering the motion, the Court found that it was well-grounded and should be upheld. Hence, to receive the materials of official investigation into the case, the court hearing was adjourned till December 10, 2015, 2 pm.

See also: hcav.am