Court of Appeals upheld the First Instance Court’s verdict on soldier Arman Muradyan’s case.
Yesterday the Armenian Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by the prosecutor’s office, letting stand the decision of the first instance court on a new investigation into the case of serviceman Arman Muradyan.
We had reported previously that on 14 February 2019, the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction had satisfied the victim’s successor’s complaint in the case of Arman Muradyan, who was the victim of a gunshot wound during his military service in 2013. We reported that the court had obliged the preliminary investigative body to strike down its decision refusing to launch a criminal case and conduct a new investigation.
In March 2019, A. Shahbazyan, senior prosecutor of the Department for Investigation of Especially Important Cases at the Armenian Prosecutor General’s Office, filed an appeal to verify the legitimacy and validity of the 14 February 2019 ruling made by the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction.
On 21 May 2019, the Armenian Court of Appeals held its third hearing scheduled for the appeal review. Judge Mkhitaryan presided over the hearing. During the trial, the aggrieved party again presented arguments proving a number of violations made by investigators D. Igityan and S. Tamazyan during the preliminary investigation of the criminal case of the death of Arman Muradyan.
According to the aggrieved party, it was necessary that the investigator fully review the case and also familiarize himself with a complaint lodged by the aggrieved party several years ago. The complaint revealed that the preliminary investigative body qualified a deliberate murder as a suicide. This has resulted in the murderer/murderers having escaped punishment so far.
According to Ruben Martirosyan, an expert from Peace Dialogue NGO which is the representative of the victim’s legal successor, it is not possible to present all facts showing the lawlessness of the investigation and obvious crimes during a single court session. They are numerous and would require several court sessions. Having heard the arguments of the aggrieved party and considering them satisfactory, the court rejected the prosecutor’s complaint and let the first instance court’s ruling stand. That decision obliged the investigative authority to strike down the ruling on rejecting the criminal case and to conduct a new investigation.
Case investigator Avetisyan did not show up in court, and the prosecutor who filed the complaint did not wait for the court to announce its decision. He realized it would be negative for him.
According to Hovsep Muradyan, Arman Muradyan’s father and the victim’s legal successor, protests and blocking the court entrance on 20 May, a day before the trial, perhaps had a positive impact on the court’s just ruling.
Muradyan personally participated in the protest blocking the entrance of the Court of Appeals and considers it to be the main reason for Judge Mkhitaryan’s unexpected behavior during the last court session. Judge Mkhitaryan showed blatant disrespect at the previous court hearing and did not even intend to hear the victim’s arguments. He also removed the victim’s successor’s legal representative R. Martirosyan. Meanwhile, during the last session, he heard the injured party’s arguments until the very end. He later returned from his counseling chamber with a fair decision.
Posted 02 July, 2019
