A delusive investigation of a double murder case.
The Peace Dialogue NGO will represent interests of the family members of two victims: the parents of the conscripts Grigor Avetisyan and of Suren Aramyan, who were deceased in April 2016. Peace Dialogue engaged the organization’s expert Ruben Martirosyan to represent the families during the investigation and the trial, and assist them with expertise and legal advice as necessary.
The two soldiers Grigor Avetisyan and Suren Aramyan were friends and both were killed in a combat post on April 6, 2016. According to the parents, the investigation that has been carried out in the double murder case of their sons during the last tight months was biased, erroneous and illegal.
Grigor Avetisyan’s father Hermon Avetisyan said that there were a few factors that made him suspicious: “ The day of the incident, in the evening I was informed that my son’s body was being transferred from the combat post to Vardenis hospital. I left for Vardenis in order to accompany my son’s body. While I was standing in front of the hospital I noticed a white Niva model car in front of the hospital. When the driver of the car, a person in Military Police uniform who was unknown to me, opened the trunk of the car I noticed a few rifle guns in it. I went closer and saw five rifle guns in the trunk. They were without packaging and without a seal, they were laying there all open. I also noticed that one of the rifles had gunshot traces on it – there were bullet holes in the stock of the rifle, another gunshot hole was noticeable on the right of the metal casing and that part of the weapon was damaged. Taking into consideration that I had already heard that my son was murdered by a number of gunshot wounds, I immediately guessed that it was my son’s weapon. To clarify my doubts, I asked the above mentioned officer if it was my son Girgor’s weapon. The latter was not surprised by my question. My question did not surprise him, he only answered evasively that he did not know. When I received the ballistic and trace report number 16551603 from the investigator to which there were photos attached of my son’s AKM model rifle (rifle number ЯЛ-1486), I realized that I saw the same traces on the rifle that was in the trunk of the Niva model car. However, to my surprise, the experts were provided not with the five rifles which I saw in Vardenis, but only four of them: the fifth rifle had vanished somehow.”
The soldier’s father is convinced that a crime was committed. The preliminary investigative body did not have the right to transport the rifles in that condition or to hand them to someone else to say the least.
Moreover, according to the investigator, soldier Davit Doumikyan allegedly came to the Vardenis Military Police two days following the double murder and confessed that he murdered Avetisyan and Aramyan. However, according to the information that the aggrieved party received, Doumikyan withdrew his confessions later on announcing that those testimonies were extorted from him by “a tall colonel”.
The Peace Dialogue’s legal expert R. Martirosyan believes it is necessary to initiate a criminal case over Doumikyan’s statement that his testimonies were extorted from him illegally. Moreover, it is important to make sure that Doumikyan is released immediately and all the necessary conditions must be provided so that he can give new and true testimonies in the case.
In general, the dubious statements, tricks and manipulations used by the investigative body are numerous and are similar to those that occurred in all the other cases that were covered up. For example, this time, just like in the previous cases, no fingerprints were found on the rifles. Theoretically, the fingerprints could have been erased by the killers. However, since there was no investigation carried out over this case, it means, most probably, that the fingerprints were erased by the preliminary investigative body. It should be noted that one of the four rifles was not sent for a fingerprint investigation, which is a blatant procedural violation.
Perhaps, even if the fingerprints were found they could have belonged to the MP officer who was transporting the rifles without proper packaging. In general relevant to the rifles, it should be noted that it is necessary to identify the owner of the Niva car; find out why he had the rifles that were an evidence in the murder case; find out rifles’ numbers that were not found and not sent to the investigators; find them and send for the ballistics; at the same time find out who that rifle was bellonged to and where its owner was on the day of the incident.
Another suspicious circumstance is that the investigator “does not consider it appropriate” to carry out a forensic trace investigation of the clothes. Formally, that expertise has certainly been made, as evidenced by the expert opinion # 16551603, however, it can be concluded that the forensic trace examination of the clothing was done poorly. The experts mentioned a number of “non-gunshot” injuries on the clothes of the deceased soldiers, however they said nothing about how those occurred and when. Instead, the investigator of the case, abusing his official position and assuming the functions of an expert, gave an oral expert opinion on the injuries.
That is a blatant illegality and it is necessary to carry out a thorough forensic trace investigation of the clothes which will provide answers to the following questions:
1.Is there any evidence of a mechanical impact on clothing and injuries or signs that are not specific to operational deterioration?
2.If yes, where are they located and what features do they have?
3.Their nature and origin: are these injuries caused by a sharp cutting object?
4.What is the limitation period?
Moreover, as noted by the expert Ruben Martirosyan, the expert opinions given by the RA “Expertise Centre of the Republic of Armenia” a State Non-Profit Organization cannot be trusted. He stated: “As a representative of the victim’s successor in the murder case of Manuchar Manucharyan, I sent an inquiry titled “Reporting a crime” to both the General Prosecutor and the president of the Investigative Committee A. Hovsepyan and provided irrefutable evidence that the expert of the Expertise Center SNCO Mr. Hambardzumyan committed a crime by deliberately trying to cover up the fact of M. Manucharyan’s murder. Considering all the above mentioned factors, I don’t trust that expert and that expertise center and I am going to appeal to carry out an examination in another expertise center.”
There were a number of other inconsistencies. For example, according to the official hypothesis, a soldier at the same military base David Doumikyan, entered the tent barrack, opened fire and shot two soldiers in the leg and murdered Suren Aramyan who was sleeping in the tent. However, the bullets were nor found. Abusing his official position, the investigator did not send the tent, or any part of it, for an examination to find out whether there were traces on the tent characteristic to gunshot. Hermon Avetisyan has irrefutable evidence that the two soldiers of the military base Grigori Hrachya Sargsyan and Felix H. Hovhannisyan were illegally detained for nearly a month in the Military Police detention center in Martuni, Gegharkunik region.
The investigator of the case refuses to provide the aggrieved party with a commanding officer order appointing soldiers on the relevant duty at the crime scene in the “N” firing point and what weapons were attached to them. The investigator’s explanation is that the mentioned document is allegedly a military secret. Peace Dialogue’s expert believes that he simply wants to keep the aggrieved party uninformed. Thus, violating the RA Constitution, the second clause of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the decisions of the European Court, according to which both sides of the case, particularly the aggrieved party, should be provided with the sufficient information to enable them to carry out their functions under the law.
Based on all of the above mentioned, it should not be surprising that the aggrieved party has numerous questions, which is another prove that this case (just like the previous ones) is conducted by the authorities with many cover-ups.
The aggrieved party, with the support of Peace Dialogue and its expert Rouben Martirosyan, have sent numerous appeals and the crime reports to different instances, including the RA Ombudsman, General Prosecutor, the RA Prime Minister, and the RA President Serj Sargsyan, calling attention to the violations set forth above, with a request to verify all the mentioned facts and carry out an objective and in-depth examination of these facts, requesting to launch a new criminal case and identify and punish the perpetrators.
The aggrieved party challenged the 5th garrison division, and a formal appeal was made to assign the further investigation of the case to another investigative body so that the investigative body will provide the aggrieved party with all the necessary documents so that the latter will be able to carry out its functions.
Posted 02 February, 2017
