ANOTHER TWO WITNESSES GIVE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE ON CASE OF ALEXANDER ARZUMANIAN AND SUREN SIRUNIAN
NOYAN TAPAN
APRIL 21, 2009
YEREVAN
The trial on the case of former RA Foreign Minister Alexander
Arzumanian and Suren Sirunian accused of organizing mass disorders on
2008 March 1 continued on April 20 at Yerevan’s Kentron and Nork-Marash
communities’ first instance court presided over by judge Mnatsakan
Martirosian. Two witnesses were interrogated at the sitting and the
preliminary investigation evidence of another witness was publicized
at the sitting. At the prosecutor party’s suggestion two witnesses,
Mayis Sahakian and Hovhannes Mkhoyan were removed from the list of
witnesses. Thus at the April 22 sitting it is envisaged to interrogate
the last two out of 15 witnesses invited for giving evidence.
Witness Emma Beglarian interrogated at the sitting said that
by coincidence after the midday on March 1, 2008 she appeared
in the territory near Yerevan Mayor’s Office, which was very
crowded. According to the witness, S. Sirunian distinguished himself
by activity, he "was running hither and thither," but she personally
did not hear what he said to his co-thinkers. E. Beglarian also said
that she did not witness any conflict.
At the same time the witness confessed that she took part in the action
of protest organized near first President Levon Ter-Petrosian’s house,
which was in detail covered on TV.
The testimony of the second witness, Ashot Haroutiunian contradicted
his preliminary investigation evidence: in response to defence party’s
questions in many cases he denied some assertions he did earlier
and in response to prosecutor party’s questions confirmed the very
assertions. The witness also mixed up whether he witnessed this or
that episode or saw it by television. A. Haroutiunian confessed that
the investigator "helped" him to formulate his thoughts, as well as
to enumerate the movement activists’ names at the same time mentioning
that the investigator did not exert pressure upon him.
The defence party also drew court’s attention to the fact that there is
also contradiction in the issue of time of witness’ giving evidence:
according to the witness, he was interrogated 15-20 days after the
March 1 events, while the evidence was dated by April 29.