The Court Obliged the Preliminary Investigation Body to Conduct a New Investigation into the Case of Arman Muradyan’s Death
Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction today satisfied the complaint of the legal successor of Arman Muradyan – the soldier who was killed as a result of a mortal gunshot wound back in 2013 – obliging the preliminary investigation body to withdraw the decision of refusing to initiate a criminal case and to conduct an investigation.
On 30 July 2013, in the protection area of one of the NK military units located in the north-eastern direction of the NK-Azerbaijani borderline, soldier Arman Muradyan (born in 1993) received a mortal gunshot wound. At the end of last year, the soldier’s father and legal successor Hovsep Muradyan applied to the Peace Dialogue NGO with the request of receiving legal support in the course of the investigation of his son’s death.
A 42-year-old deputy commander of the Military Unit, Emil Avetisyan, was charged in the frames of the criminal case initiated as per Article 110 Part 1 of the RA Criminal Code (driving a person to suicide). The latter’s guilt was confirmed by the preliminary investigation and trial of the initiated criminal case.
The aggrieved party does not agree with the legal acts established in the scope of the investigation and has filed a complaint to the RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, by the order of whom the RA Military Prosecutor’s Office has reinitiated the examination of the case materials. As a result, it was revealed that investigator D. Igityan and S. Tamazyan made a number of violations in the course of the preliminary investigation of the case. Based on the aforementioned, the Military Prosecutor’s office had filed a petition to the RA Special Investigative Service with the request of giving a legal and criminal evaluation to the investigators’ actions and prepare materials. On 18 November 2018, however, S. Avetisyan, an investigator of the Special Investigative Service, had decided to reject the petition to initiate a criminal case. The aggrieved party appealed the decision to the RA Prosecutor General. The appeal was also rejected by the decision of the Chief for the investigation of particularly important cases of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office.
On 10 January 2019, the aggrieved party appealed the decision of refusing to reinitiate a criminal case by court order. According to the aggrieved party, the violations presented by the Military Prosecutor’s office only comprise a small part of the violations made in the course of the case investigation. Today’s hearing on the decision appeal was also attended by investigator S. Avetisyan, who presented his standpoint on the appeal and brought counter-arguments.
It is noteworthy that investigator Avetisyan gave his own qualifications to investigators’ illegal actions: according to him, D. Igityan and S. Tamazyan had no interest whatsoever in committing a deliberate crime; and attributed the facts presented by the aggrieved party and later by the Military Prosecutor’s Office to their negligence.
In response to the aforementioned, the legal representative of the victim’s successor, PD expert R. Martirosyan presented his objections. According to him, it was necessary that the investigator examines the case fully which implies getting acquainted with the appeal filed by the aggrieved party years ago, which reveals the intentional qualification of murder into a suicide, as a result of which the murderer/murderers have so far avoided punishment. R. Martirosyan agreed with investigator Avetisyan, stating that it is impossible to determine whether or not there has been any intention in the investigators’ actions by means of investigating separate episodes. The separate examination of case episodes would not make it possible to reveal the logical connection between the investigators’ actions and the obtained false proofs. The whole picture may be revealed only by means of a comprehensive and overarching investigation.
Taking into consideration the arguments of the aggrieved party and considering them as satisfactory, the court decided to satisfy the appeal and obliged the preliminary investigation body to withdraw the decision on refusing to initiate a criminal case and reinitiate an investigation.
According to R. Martirosyan, the legal representative of the victim’s successor, the aforementioned court decision gives hope that the courts are gradually discarding the impact of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Investigative Committee and are making an attempt to operate independently.
Posted 20 February, 2019
