The person accused of inciting a soldier’s suicide insisted that the investigator gave him directions
18:25, November 28, 2017 | News, Own news
At the hearing of the case of inciting soldier Gevorg Khachatryan’s death, the objects recognized as physical evidence in the case were examined and the defendants were questioned before the General Jurisdiction Court of Syunik Province on November 24, 2017.
Within the framework of the launched criminal case, a charge was brought against Captain Mher Voskanyan, the head of the security post, (under Part 2 of Article 364.1, Part 1 of Article 375 and Part 2 of Article 360 of the RA Criminal Code), Non-commissioned Officer Hovik Kalashyan, the major of the post (under Part 1 of Article 364.1 and Part 1 of Article 375 of the RA Criminal Code) as well as Harutyun Muradyan, a conscript soldier (under Part 2 Point 2 of Article 359, Part 1 of Article 364.1 on two episodes and Part 3 of Article 359 of the RA Criminal Code).
Defendant Hovik Kalashyan refused to testify and did not answer the questions raised by the Parties and the Court. The Defendant’s preliminary testimony was pronounced, following which it was stated that it included inaccuracies.
Defendant M. Voskanyan, in his testimony, pleaded not guilty. He stated that during the proceedings, he formed an opinion that G. Khachatryan’s suicide had nothing to do with military service. He denied the accusations against him and requested to terminate the criminal case and halt the criminal prosecution.
In response to the Plaintiff’s question as to why in that case he had pleaded guilty during the preliminary examination, the Defendant responded that the prosecutor had urged him to undertake that step. The legal successor of the Aggrieved Party and the representative of the successor also directed several questions to the Defendant.
The Court indicated that there were substantial contradictions between the Defendant’s testimony given during the preliminary investigation and that given during the trial. Therefore, the Court made the decision to pronounce those contradictions. Following that, the Defendant mentioned in regard to the existing contradictions that the prosecutor instructed him to write like that for his own good, hence his decision to do so.
Defendant H. Muradyan mentioned that he was willing to give testimony but only in the presence of his other defender Seda Safaryan. As the latter was unable to show up at the Court, the Court adjourned the hearing to ensure Seda Safaryan’s presence.
The next hearing is at 9.30 am on December 7, 2017.