The case regarding the death of a soldier that has been under investigation for already 14 years was removed from dismissal for the third time
It is already the third time the preliminary investigation of the criminal case number 90511400 is reinitiated in regard to the death of soldier Arman Hakobyan who died after receiving a gunshot wound during his military service in the year 2000. On February 25, 2014, the victim’s successor Vardan Hakobyan was informed by the RA MoD Investigation Department of Cases of Particular Importance that the dismissed preliminary investigation concerning his son’s death is once again resumed.
The preliminary investigative body considered proven the fact that, on September 25, 2000, at around 3:40 a.m., RA MoD soldier Arman Vardani Hakobyan, while on guard duty in the control point, fired one shot from AK-74 rifle number 1181849 and received a gunshot wound in the forehead, dying on the way to the hospital.
- On September 15, 2001, the case was dismissed because the identities of the persons who committed the crime were unknown.
- On November 11, 2008, the case was reopened and an additional examination was carried out.
- On April 11, 2009, the criminal case was again dismissed with the same explanation as before.
According to Peace Dialogue NGO’s expert Ruben Martirosyan for almost 14 years, a biased and falsified preliminary investigation has been carried out accompanied by gross violations of the criminal procedure code. The copies of expert opinions and decisions that he possesses prove all that.
The fact that Arman Hakobyan was murdered is proven by the following : according to the “Fingerprint Investigation” section of ballistic and trace evidence examination number 23870003, concerning the weapon and the cap, no fingerprints were discovered on the magazine or elsewhere on rifle number 1181849, which is considered the murder weapon.
The murder tool, rifle number 1181849, that was entered as evidence was not assigned to the victim. From the decisions of the criminal case, it is not clear who the rifle belonged to. The preliminary investigative body did not carry out a detailed investigation regarding this crucial fact despite the fact that, with the identity of the rifle’s owner, it is possible to find the real murderer. Consequently, it is the owner of the rifle that killed Arman Hakobyan or gave his rifle to some third party for the same reason. The fact that the preliminary investigative body ignored this crucial fact and continued the investigation with the hypothesis of suicide gives enough reasons to assume that it was the investigative body that destroyed fingerprints in order to present the deliberate murder as a suicide.
Again proper investigation was not carried out regarding this and some other facts (some of them are presented here), while expert R. Martirosyan’s appeals to carry out additional investigation of the case were unlawfully dismissed.
Violating Articles 196-197 of the Criminal Code, forensic doctor A. Babayan did not answer question number four in the investigator’s report: “How long was the period between the cause of the injuries and the death? How long after the injuries was the death recorded?” However, the preliminary investigative body did not respond to this illegality, taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses that A. Hakobyan’s death was recorded on the way to the hospital. But according to the forensic doctor, the cause of Hakobyan’s death was a single gunshot from front to back, on a downward and leftward trajectory as a result of which Hakobyan received a “skull cap fracture and numerous bone fractures of the main skull, pulverization of the brain matter, which was distributed through the path of the bullet, subdural and leptomeningal hematoma, and liquid blood in the brain ventricle.” Judging from these heavy injuries, Arman Hakobyan’s death should have been recorded right after they were caused. However, for some reason, the fake hypothesis was more convenient for the preliminary investigation body. This fact also requires comprehensive investigation.
In his decision to carry out a forensic examination of the body, investigator Khachatryan, while presenting the circumstances of the case, mentioned that guard Arman Hakobyan “fired a shot from a rifle as a result of which he immediately died.” But in his 11.11.2008 decision, A. H. Sargsyan, an employee of the RA MD Investigative Department, mentioned that A. Hakobyan received a gunshot wound to his head and died on the way to the hospital. The investigative body did not carry out a deep investigation regarding this important contradiction, either. A. Hakobyan’s head injuries indicate that he died on the spot, seconds after being shot. It is unclear why and by whom fake testimonies were given that Hakobyan died later, on the way to the hospital. To clarify this question, the investigator was supposed to address one more question to the expert: “How long after receiving the gunshot injury did A. Hakobyan die?” However, the investigator did not mention this crucial question in his report and did not question forensic doctor Babayan about this issue. This contradiction implies that the control point was not the location of the incident and, giving false testimonies, the witnesses tried to justify moving the body from the crime scene and destroying the scene. Through an additional investigation it is necessary to clarify this contradiction and, additionally, question both the witnesses and the forensic doctor.
Based on forensic examination report number 762/4, forensic doctor Arsen Babayan discovered injuries on Arman Hakobyan’s body: “numerous scratches on the nose, back, neck, right torso, left forearm, the 4th finger of the left hand, left lower hip, buttocks, upper left and right thighs, one third of the shin, the right shin and foot area, and scratches and bruises on the right shoulder joint. All these injuries were caused by striking with a blunt object 12-24 hours before the death.”
The preliminary investigative body considered proven the fact that these injuries were caused to Arman Hakobyan by Garik Hovhannishyan (nickname “Pisr,” which means Clerk)and Arshak Shahbazyan (nickname “Biza,” Old Man) on September 23 at approximately 8:00 pm. We assume that the investigators of the case, Khachatryan and HrachAyvazyan, and their superiors did not know arithmetic. According to the forensic doctor, Hakobyan was brutally tortured on September 24 from 4am to 4pm.That is 8-20 hours later than the fight mentioned by the investigators and, therefore, those injuries could not have been caused by the fight.
Thus, the preliminary investigative body did not answer the most important questions: By whom, where, and why was Arman Hakobyan beaten up and tortured within the time period mentioned by the forensic doctor? The answers to these questions should be given by additional investigation.
From the same examination report, it is clear that the investigator did not present Arman’s cap to the expert but presented a totally different cap, which has the following note: “VACHO, DShB, 2000.”The preliminary investigative body apparently did not consider this significant because they did not carry out a detailed examination regarding this fact.Why would Arman have someone else’s cap on him and where was his cap?
Forensic doctor Babayan wrote, particularly in the conclusions section, that “as a result of the forensic biological examination of the samples taken from A Hakobyan’s mouth cavity and rectum, semen was not revealed. But the absence of semen does not exclude the possibility of the sexual actions.” Thus, the forensic doctor brings out a hypothesis without any facts, relying only on his unjustified assumptions. Moreover, for the investigative body the doctor’s phrase “does not exclude” turns into an indisputable fact. One of the parents said, “[f]or 12 years already, the investigators and their superiors have been trying to blackmail and humiliate me, silence my complaints against the illegal and continuing preliminary investigation, announcing that my son was supposedly subjected to sexual abuse. But the same investigator did not reveal that fact of sexual abuse speculated by them at any point during the 14-year investigation.”
The preliminary investigative body considered proven that Arman was murdered while he was on duty in the Control Point. But according to forensic examination report number 27110002, the boy had a sport shoe on his right foot with MD 1999 imprinted on the sole and ”Armen JOG”(an identifier) inked on the tongue of the shoe. There was also a sock on the same foot, while the left shoe and the sock have not been found by the preliminary investigative body. Based on this fact, the preliminary investigative body should have answered at least the following questions:
A/1 How was it possible that Arman Hakobyan was on guard service in sport shoes?
A/2 If Hakobyan committed suicide then where are his left shoe and sock?
A/2 Why was he wearing a shoe with “Armen JOG” written on it.
The preliminary investigative body does not take appropriate measures to answer any of these questions.
In the preliminary investigation report, it is mentioned that “UPAG, Petrosyan E.R.” was written on the lining of a vest that was sent to the expert. The preliminary investigative body also closes its eyes to this fact. The comparison of the facts should surprise the investigator because, according to those facts, Arman Hakobyan had neither a cap, nor shoes, nor a vest. All his clothes belonged to other soldiers, which is more than suspicious. The investigators should have found out who E. R. Petrosyan was and why his vest was found (according to the preliminary investigative body) on Hakobyan. They should also have discovered what happened to Hakobyan’s cap, military shoes, vest, and other clothes.
In the decision to terminate the criminal case, the investigator mentions, “[d]uring the preliminary investigation, 88 people were questioned in total. But it was not possible to find out how and under what circumstances A. Hakobyan died.” In fact the authorities were supposed to be angry and surprised at this “sincere confession” since, if the investigators knew nothing about the incident, then how they concluded that it was a suicide and why throughout these years only the same fake and ungrounded hypothesis of suicide was raised?
The investigator found a bottle with unknown contents at the crime scene and sent it to the expert. According to forensic chemical expert decision Number 154, sulfur was found in the contents of the cream in the bottle. The investigator has not discovered what other substances that lubricant contained, what percentage of the cream was sulfur, whether it was poison or medicine, whether it was dangerous for life, how it ended up in the crime scene, who it belonged to, and for what reason someone kept that with him or brought it to the crime scene. None of these questions were answered by the preliminary investigative body. The answers should be received from an additional investigation, during which this mentioned lubricant should be sent for additional examination.
According to the testimony of the witness, soldiers G. Hovhannisyan and A. Shahbazyan beat up ArmanHakobyan,claiming that it was because of his testimony that GagikKostanyan and GevorgGevorgyan had been sentenced. The preliminary investigative body did not investigate this hypothesis or did not want to investigate and find out whether or not the accusations of the soldiers were true.
The preliminary investigative body considered proven that Hakobyan was subjected to beatings by soldiers Garik Hovhannisyan, Arshak Shahbazyan, and Sergey Solovyov. Refering to the incident as a suicide, the preliminary investigative body has not seen the obvious link between the actions of these people and Arman Hakonyan’sdeath. In these circumstances, the preliminary investigative body was obliged to charge these people under Article 110 of the RA Criminal Code (encouraging to commit suicide), which was not done. This is also an indirect evidence proving that Arman Hakobyan was murdered and that the mentioned witnesses are aware of the details of the incident. If charges were presented to them then they would tell the truth in order to protect themselves and reveal who and why murdered Arman Hakobyan.
A witness in the criminal case testified that he saw soldier Simon Muradyan before the incident in the area of the incident. Later, after the suspension of the criminal case on August 7, 2006, the witness gave additional testimony renouncing his previous testimony. The fact that the preliminary investigative body took testimonies from the witness after the suspension of the criminal case is a gross violation of the criminal procedure code and abuse of official power. But the guilty officials are not subjected to criminal liability.
From the testimonies given during the preliminary investigation, it was revealed that, after the incident, Sargis Ohanyan and Simon Muradyan had an argument regarding the incident. During this argument, Muradyan suggested Ohanyan go and “fess up.”In other words, Muradyan suggested Ohanyan confess their crime, the murder of Arman Hakobyan. But again having interest in the case, the preliminary investigation body did not carry out a profound investigation regarding this fact.
From witness H.M.’s testimony it turns out that, on September 25, 2000 at approximately 3:00a.m, V. Mkhitaryan and A. Hakobyan went into the canteen after which H.M. and A. Andreasyan left the canteen and went to the headquarters to turn in their weapons.
A number of questions regarding the military statute arise from this testimony but necessary investigation was not carried out about them. Thus, it has not been clarified what rights Mejlumyan and Andreasyan had to enter the canteen with weapons.
It has not been revealed who was the supervisor of these guardsmen’s duty, what were the responsibilities of the superviser after these guardsmen’s duty was finished, why nobody escorted them, why nobody ordered them to turn the weapons in after duty, and where the guards of the canteen, the platoon, the company, and the battalion were at that time.
In his testimony, witness H.Sh. mentions that on September 25 at around 3:00a.m he went to the headquarters and received his rifle after which he took his shift in the parking lot. In the period between taking his shift and hearing the gunshot he heard footsteps of some seven or eight people but he did not see their faces and did not talk to anyone.
The preliminary investigative body has not revealed the identities of the seven or eight soldiers mentioned by the witness and what they were doing outside late at night. At the same time, from H. Sh.’s testimony we understand that he violated the statute of the military duty. He did not have the right to receive a weapon without the supervisor, go to the parking lot all by himself, and begin guard duty there.
The preliminary investigative body did not give proper assessment to the case. All those who were guilty in the mentioned illegalities which lead to the Arman Hakobyan’s murder were not subjected to criminal prosecution.
There are essential contradictions in the testimonies given during the preliminary investigation by many witnesses and those contradicitons have never been resolved. The witnesses were not questioned further.A face-to-face interrogation was not carried out when necessary.The registers of the platoon, the company, and the battalion were not checked.And when it was revealed that the duty registers were falsified, the falsifiers were not punished according to the law, and no legal account was given for their actions.
As it has already been mentioned in the article, it will be the third time since the year 2000 a preliminary investigation will be carried out regarding this case, while nothing was revealed as a result of previous preliminary investigations: every time the case was dismissed due to an absence of guilty persons.
Peace Dialogue NGO will closely follow the course of the investigation and its results.
Posted 02 April, 2014
