During the trial for the murder of Sargis Sahakyan appeals by the aggrieved party and the defendant to challenge the prosecutor were accepted.
On December 18, 2014 the hearing of Sargis Sahakyan’s murder trial was continued (based on the appeals of the aggrieved party and the defendant). It should be noted once again that as a result of an inaccurate preliminary investigation, the murder was presented as a suicide. Moreover, during the trial numerous offences were revealed which were carried out by the investigative body and the prosecutor’s office during the preliminary investigation phase.
Without taking into consideration the aforementioned provided facts, Judge Napoleon Ohanyan made an unfair decision considering proven the fact that Sargis Sahakyan committed suicide, after which two people were charged with driving the latter to commit suicide.
During this trial the defendant’s lawyer Mrs. Torosyan challenged prosecutor Gagik Mayilyan with the following: “in 2014 the prosecutor and his colleague Ashot Gasparyan applied to court and a criminal case was initiated based on the fact that after the trial the defendant Arthur Misakyan’s father threatened the prosecutor, his colleague and members of their families”.
The preliminary investigation considered it proven that Ara Misakyan in fact did threaten Mayilyan and, afterwards, a criminal case was sent to the court. Since Mayilyan was considered an aggrieved party and Ara Misakyan’s actions were derived from the same criminal case being heard, Mayilyan should be considered an interested party and therefore cannot continue the case as a prosecutor.
The representative of the victim’s successor, Peace Dialogue NGO’s expert criminologist R. Martirosyan also challenged the prosecutor on the following grounds. Mayilyan was involved in the case from the very beginning as an observing prosecutor and numerous illegalities were committed throughout this case’s investigation.
Therefore, Mayilyan either displayed official inaction or these illegalities were committed by his instigation and support. The illegalities continued after the preliminary investigation and into the trial: Mayilyan called witness GorMargaryan at least three times and demanded that he repeated his testimony given during the preliminary investigation phase and threatened him that in case he would not do that he would be severely punished.
While giving testimony as a witness, Gor Margaryan announced that his testimonies given during the preliminary investigation were false and he wrote them under pressure. During the break announced by the Judge, prosecutor Mayilyan forced the witness Margaryan to go to one of the rooms in the court building. He ordered and forced Margaryan to give written explanation to the Military Police officers, the same officers who extorted false testimonies from him during the preliminary investigation phase.
Mayilyan’s actions were illegal because the witness was already testifying to the court the same day at that time: the prosecutor has no authority to force the witness to give explanations to the Military Police officers.
These actions of Mayilyan are criminal offences aimed at terrorizing, silencing the victim and forcing him to give false testimonies that are favored by the preliminary investigative body and the prosecutor’s office.
The court considered there were grounds for both the defendant’s and the aggrieved party’s challenge (particularly that prosecutor Mayilyan displayed official inaction during the preliminary investigation phase) and accepted the challenge.
This decision implies that the Court will send facts based on its decision to the General Prosecutor.
Peace Dialogue NGO will continue following the trial: the next trial will take place at 12:00p.m on January 15, 2015.
Posted 22 December, 2014
