THE ROLES WERE CAST IN A PRECISE MANNER
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on July 23, 2008
Armenia
The disorders were supervised by one centre
VAHAGN HAROUTYUNYAN, senior investigator of the Special Investigative
Service of the General Prosecutor’s Office and Head of the
Investigative Group, was invited to yesterday’s session of the NA
interim committee investigating the March 1-2 events. The purpose
of his participation was to give details on the circumstances of the
prosecution of the 3 MPs who are currently under arrest.
Judging by all, the committee members have finally started acting as
the advocates of the people accused of organizing the acts of violence
of March 1. Following this logic, yesterday they "cross-examined"
the Head of the Investigative Group, in an attempt to presume Sasoun
Mikayelyan, Myasnik Malkhasyan and Hakob Hakobyan innocent.
Let’s note at once that V. Haroutyunyan refuted the false allegations
that those people were deprived of immunity and arrested without
supporting facts and convincing arguments and are now kept in isolation
cells in the status of "hostages", without being interrogated.
With regard to the other defendants charged by Articles 300 and 225
(usurping state power and organizing mass disorders), Head of the
Investigative Group said that, "there are sufficient proofs and
assumptions that the crime was commit ted according to a previously
agreed plan. In particular, there were sufficient grounds to bring
charges against the three MPs, and later additional proofs were
obtained as a result of the inquest which is still in process."
The charge brought against Sasoun Mikayelyan are substantiated "both
by the testimonies of a number of witnesses and the large quantity of
ammunition recognized as material evidence." There are no policemen
among the witnesses interrogated in that connection; there are only
civilians whose testimonies were not published, considering the
interests of the inquest.
In any case, due to the "organizational efforts" of Sasoun Mikayelyan,
"Iron sticks and clubs were brought to the Freedom Square and were
later carried to the territory surrounding Myasnikyan’s Statue and
the Mayor’s Office. He called for continuing the acts of violence
against the representatives of the authorities with the purpose of
usurping power."
As regards the speculations that the MPs are interrogated in very
rare cases, this is simply misinformation, "All the three MPs were
interrogated, each of them – from 8 to 10 times. It’s a different
matter that all the three of them refused to take part in the
interrogation."
With regard to the fact that the MPs carried out their work in a
superficial manner, V Haroutyunyan noted, "How could the activities =0
D have lasted long if the person refuses to take part in the process
and is reluctant to give testimony. In particular, S Mikayelyan
left the interrogation room several times refusing to answer the
interrogator’s questions." All the investigative operations with the
accused, including the MPs, were recorded in the registration book
in a manner prescribed by law.
According to the Head of the Investigative Group, the MPs and the
other people were charged by Article 225, considering that "they
involved people in the operations, supplied them with ammunition,
called for mass disorders, incited the participants to violence and
disseminated provocative information."
Of the 15 witnesses who gave testimony in connection with Myasnik
Malkhasyan’s case, one person was an MP. One of the witnesses confessed
that right after the mass disorders, "M. Malkhasyan was seen by some
people while passing by the Circus and was asked why they had cancelled
the operations and gave an instruction discontinue the activities,
and what they were planning to do afterwards. And Malkhasyan answered
that this was the right thing to do at that moment, and everything
would be clear in future."
V. Haroutyunyan refuted the V. Malkhasyan’s allegation that no charges
were brought against him for 10 days following his arrest, and the
color of the "well-known" stick was changed the day after. Instead,
he confirmed the fact that their finger-prints were not to be found
there because, being in a state of confusion, the policemen passed
this attribute – the so-called material evidence, from hand to hand,
and conducting a fingerprint expertise was found unnecessary in such
circumstances.
There are more charges brought against Hakob Hakobyan. According to
the data obtained, he not only provoked the activists into disorders,
but also paid for the "special means" used by them. It was due to
his "funding" that "bottles filled with easily inflammable liquid
were thrown to the policemen, and the people were forced into mass
disorders under the threat of being dismissed from their jobs.
With regard to H. Hakobyan’s case, 100 witnesses were interrogated,
and there are testimonies substantiating his crime through direct
as well as circumstantial evidence. There is also a concrete person
who confessed that they had received weapons. Among the dead, there
are people who had direct connections with H. Hakobyan; they were
recruited by him and complied with his instructions.
All in all, there was a precise role-casting as to who was to incite
disorders, who was to procure iron sticks and weapons and who was
to distribute them among the "peaceful demonstrators". All this was
organized and supervised by some center, and one of the objectives
of the inquest is to find out what center it=2 0is," Head of the
investigative group assured the participants.
In response to the question of "Hayots Ashkharh", V. Haroutyunyan said
that the special measures had caused the death of three civilians, and
three more people had died as a result of receiving fire-arm injuries;
one person had died as a result of an injury caused by a blunt tool,
and one was killed by a transparent bullet of unknown calibers. Two
of the dead people were military servants; one of them was killed by
the explosion of a grenade and the other – by a transparent bullet.
The investigative body has not yet made any decision with regard to
the legality of the special measures undertaken; the investigation
of the case is in process.