“I simply don’t understand, is Armenia copying the sad experience of the Russian army or being a bad example for the latter?” – said Russian human rights defender Dmitri Pislar who is the representative of the Moscow’s branch of the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia.

While presenting with a speech during the workshop Human rights in the Armed Forces: Systemization of Experience, he announced: “What we have heard during these two days from our Armenian colleagues about the human rights issues in the army makes us feel seriously concerned.”

The workshop held in Yerevan on April 29th and April 30th aimed at providing a working platform for community groups, organizations, activists and the family representatives of the deceased soldiers for critical self-examination and self-improvement of activities in the direction of creating respect towards human rights in the armed forces.

The working meeting consisted of two thematic blocks:

• Joint analysis of the situation on the respective fields of activity of the participants. What are the political and social preconditions for the activities of the participants?
• The role of social movements and groups in shaping civilian control over the military.

During the workshop the experts who are active in the field gave speeches, which were followed by discussions on numerous issues concerning the topics and the analysis of the participants’ experience regarding the issues or their solutions.

During these two days the participants reflected upon the corruption cases in the Armenian and Russian armies, the process of organizing conscription, particularly the issues concerning the activities of the medical examination committees.

Participants also discussed some examples of human rights violations recorded during the preliminary investigation and judicial processes relating to the cases of the soldiers who died in non-combat situations. Moreover, they discussed the role and the activities of civil society groups and organizations in the prevention of such violations.

The question regarding the cooperation with the state bodies for the solutions of these problems became a very hot topic for a debate. The head of the Ufa’s branch of the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia (Bashkortostan) Vladimir Simarchuk considered that it was necessary to put pressure on the authorities in order these issues would be solved as soon as possible, however, he also added that the pressure should be not aggressive but deliberate so that it will not turn into a torrent of insults and attacks.

“Currently we demand the Russian authorities to stop the aggressive policy against Ukraine, however we do all that in a conscious and deliberate way trying to explain to the public that any new military action will lead to new losses and new tragedies”– said Mr. Pislar.

“Of course Russia’s attitude towards the NGO’s and the so called “witch hunt” is quite obvious. This phenomenon has various manifestations: the label given to the NGO’s and activists such as “foreign agents” and the so called “legislative reforms” which, to say the least, do not approve the activities of the NGOs. Many NGOs in Russia cooperate with the military commissariats, and I think that cooperation gives quite positive results in the protection of the soldiers’ rights.”– says Mr. Simarchuk.

The Armenian activists, however, have concerns in the cooperation with the authorities: “In many cases the state itself encourages the officers who kill our children in non-combat situations. Some cases include letters of the Minister of Defense, where it is written that softer approach should be applied to the officers who are heroes of Nagorno-Karabakh war.” – said Seda Melikyan, a member of the Army in Reality civil initiative.

Another participant of the workshop Tsovinar Nazaryan said:“Since we are members of the Army in Reality initiative, we try to receive information from the MoD about the cases, and then we raise awareness in the society about the issues, we meet with international organizations, and support the other parents who lost their children. As a result of all this we get acquainted with each other and now we all know each other. We are fighting for the restoration of justice.”

In the end of the two-day workshop the participants discussed what they gained during the discussions and whether the information received during the workshop can contribute to a more effective implementation of their activities.

The mothers of the deceased soldiers who were taking part in the workshop mentioned that due to the workshop they valued the importance of acting united even more and highlighted that it is necessary to support each other in the restoration of justice.

Peace Dialogue NGO’s military expert Ruben Martirosyan mentioned that the workshop gave him an opportunity to meet new colleagues. He added. “We should think how we can help each other. It was great to know that there is an independent forensic expert in Bashkortostan, in the branch of the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia. In case we need advice we can turn to him. I would also like to let our Russian colleagues know that we can express our position and support their work directed towards presenting the illegalities in the Russian army. In this way the authorities can see that the issues are already beyond the country’s borders.”

In his final speech Mr. Pislar mentioned: “I could not imagine that you have so many issues in this field in Armenia. I thought you are in a better situation. I feel sorry for this situation, it is really difficult. However, seeing so many active people, I hope that being united we are able to reach positive changes. I hope we will support each other with whatever we can. We have already come to an agreement to cooperate and to support each other.

The workshop has held in the framework of Peace Dialogue NGO՚s Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia project
The project Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia is supported by Pax .

 Pax means peace. PAX brings together people who have the courage to stand for peace. Together with people in conflict areas and concerned citizens worldwide, PAX works to build dignified, democratic, and peaceful societies across the globe.

In the period of January-March, 2014 the studies conducted by Peace Dialogue NGO recorded ten fatality cases in the RA Armed Forces. Three of the recorded cases occurred in the area of Republic of Armenia, the other seven in the Nagorno-Karabakh territory. According to the preliminary information four of the cases (soldiers Karen Galstyan, Armen Hovhannisyan, Garnik Torosyan, and Arayik Babayan) are the result of the cease fire regime violation; three of the cases are the result of health issues (Edik Shahnazaryan, Hayk Makaryan, and Arshak Zadaryan), one case was the result of a negligent attitude towards service (Arman Ghukasyan), also one case was the result of safety ruleviolation (Harutyun Safaryan), while another one was an accident (noncommissioned officer Yesayi Yesayan).
In addition, according to preliminary information, the last victim noncommissioned officer Yesayi Yesayan was not on duty at that time: he died because of a car accident. Preliminary investigation of the cases is in process.

The data was prepared in the framework of the Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia project of Peace Dialogue NGO.
The project Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia is supported by Pax .
Pax means peace. PAX brings together people who have the courage to stand for peace. Together with people 
in conflict areas and concerned citizens worldwide, PAX works to build dignified, democratic, and peaceful 
societies across the globe.

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 4^th 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.

On July 31, 2013, at approximately 1:40 pm temporary soldier Manuchar Meruzhan Manucharyan’s body was found in the area of one of the RA MD military units. A criminal case was initiated which is carried out by M. Nalbandyan, Investigator at Investigative Department for Particularly Important Cases in the 4^th Garrison Investigative Service of the RA MD.

The victim’s brother Onik Meruzhan Manucharyan who is acknowledged as the victim’s successor in the murder case applied to Peace Dialogue NGO. On February 17, 2014 he made a complaint regarding the process of the preliminary investigation, particularly against the decision made by the investigator of the case M. Nalbandyan.

Last year the victim’s brother challenged investigator M. Nalbandyan since from the very first day the latter recorded the murder committed by three gunshots as a suicide and carried out a biased investigation attempting to “substantiate” this fake and unsubstantiated hypothesis. The expertise did not find fingerprints on the victim’s weapon (in the incident location) which already proves that Manucharyan was murdered, and that the evidence was falsified (weapon was changed, fingerprints were cleaned)[1]. First, in order not to put the hypothesis of suicide under suspicion the MD Investigative Service spread false news that M. Manucharyan was a witness of Jehovah, that he was in love with a girl who refused him and that he committed suicide because of her refusal.

The challenge of the victim’s successor was refused.

The NGO specialist R. Martirosyan, getting acquainted with the above-mentioned decision, revealed that on February 17, 2014 investigator Nalbandyan made a decision about carrying out a postmortem forensic-psychological and forensic-psychiatric integrated expertise. In his decision the investigator confirmed the necessity of such an expertise and presented justifications: in fact, that decision is based on the testimonies of only one witness, Libik Edik Mkrtchyan.

According to the specialist, “Not only the investigator relies on the testimonies of only one witness when assigning an expertise, significant part of the testimonies is not clear and not proved by other witness testimonies”.

During the preliminary investigation temporary soldier of the same military unit Libik Edik Mkrtchyan testified that allegedly about 40 days before July 30, 2013 temporary soldiers of the same unit Sergeant Arman Stepanyan and Junior Sergeant Babken Gaboyan ‘… started making private Manuchar Manucharyan wash their clothes which they used to wear when leaving the unit of their own will’.

According to the witness, about 2 days before the incident (in the evening of July 29), after an order to sleep, A. Stepanyan told Manucharyan to wash his clothes but the latter refused him. Then the investigator writes. “Although M. Manucharyan did not wash A. Stepanyan’s clothes that day and went to bed, the latter kept on insisting him to wash his clothes and then went to the bed and started kicking M. Manucharyan for about 5 minutes. While hitting A. Stepanyan was asking M. Manucharyan if he would wash his clothes and the latter answered that he would not”.

Let us dwell on this episode. As a rule 25-40 soldiers sleep in the barracks of the company. Since the incident happened after the sleep order, it is logical that all the soldiers mentioned above must have been in the barracks at the time and witnessed the incident mentioned by Libik. However, according to the criminal case, what Libik told is not substantiated by the soldiers.

According to another episode told by Libik, in the evening of July 12, 2013 “…after the sleep order B. Gaboyan made Manucharyan take the roll-call records, go up to the second storey of the bed only in pants and do the roll-call out loud. Though M.Manucharyan asked B. Gaboyan not to do such a thing, the latter demanded from M.Manucharyan to do the roll-call…” M.Manucharyan “…could not read the surnames correctly and all the soldiers started laughing at him”.

The witness again tells about an incident which happened in front of the soldiers in the company barracks. Libik mentions that all the soldiers were allegedly laughing at M. Manucharyan. However, the soldiers mentioned both in Libik’s testimony and by the investigator are faceless and nameless; what Libik told is not confirmed by “all” the soldiers or at least some of them.

In his decision investigator M. Nalbandyan writes, “…on Sptember 27, 2013 B. Gaboyan was questioned as a suspect and only testified that he had never abused or beaten M. Manucharyan either with Arman Stepanyan or alone”.

The fact of violence and beatings is also substantiated by the same “sharp” Libik’s testimonies: according to him, on the day of the incident, on July 31, 2013, at approximately 8:10 am when Libik was cleaning up the unit, B. Gaboyan again ordered M. Manucharyan to wash his clothes, “… but M. Manucharyan refused him explaining that he was on duty.” B. Gaboyan got angry and heavily slapped M. Manucharyan. “…M. Manucharyan loudly demanded him not to hit him…”

Moreover, the testimonies of the witness show that the defendants made the victim wash their clothes before and he did it, however the witness does not tell the name of a concrete person who made the victim to wash the clothes and how he did it, how he started doing it and so on. He also does not tell whether he himself saw the victim washing the other soldier’s clothes, when and where it happened and whose clothes he washed.

According to the witness, the victim washed B. Gaboyan’s clothes before since the other defendant said, “You wash your granny’s clothes, why don’t you wash mine? I will smother you”. But the witness does not mention again whether such a thing happened or not, when it happened, whether he witnessed how Manuchar washed other’s clothes…

The witness mentions that the victim was often sent to the coffee bar and a little shop and again does not clarify when, at what time, who sent him, what he brought from there, for whom and who he gave what he brought.

In the testimonies of the witness it is noted that the victim received a food parcel and gave to the officers some of it in a bag and Gaboyan found out about this.

It is not clear where the witness knew that the bag contained food, when and to whom the bag was given and so on.

According to the victim’s brother, investigator M. Nalbandyan obviously presented M. Manucharyan as a coward and weak-willed young person. His description is “pleasing” at first glance and completely corresponds to the hypothesis of suicide that is put forward by the investigation but does not correspond to the reality.

“My younger brother was quiet and even-minded but at the same time physically strong and bold as every real secret agent should be. He would not humiliate anybody but would not let anybody humiliate, beat or curse him, as the “witness” writes. He had both strength and great will to protect himself”, says the victim’s brother.

All these facts make the investigator’s real purpose clear: he misrepresented M. Manucharyan as a weak-willed person because of Libik’s false testimonies in order to prove that Manucharyan committed suicide.

The following simple analysis also points out that Manucharyan’s image is misrepresented. M. Manucharyan was drafted into army on July 27, 2012. It was already over a year that he was serving in the army when the incidents described by the witness happened. In the army such soldiers are called “seniors” (who are in their last year of military service and apply physical violence or psychological abuse to make young soldiers do certain duties). It is strange and even impossible that A. Stepanyan and B. Gaboyan made Manucharyan wash their clothes instead of assigning that to the new draftees. Moreover, it is clear even from the testimonies of the “witness” that Manucharyan refused it.

The victim’s successor also mentions that when studying at V. Sargsyan’s military institute he was able to regularly visit his brother and always kept in touch with him by phone. Manuchar always shared his successes and problems with his brother, followed his advice, did as he told him to do and did not conceal anything.

According to the brother during his military servce Manucharyan never complaint from his service and nobody insulted, beat up or humiliated him. If something like would happen then Manucharyan would tell his brother since he did not conceal anything from him. Now, isn’t it strange that during one year of service nobody treated Manucharyan badly and only during the second year of service suddenly he is forced to wash someone’s clothes?

In his testimony Libik wrote: “However, M. Manucharyan did not wash A. Stepanyan’s clothes that day and went to bed…” So Libik mentioned that M. Manucharyan allegedly washed A. Stepanyan’s clothes before and just that day he did not, but Libik did not tell about an incident that occurred before when Manucharyan washed A. Stepanyan’s clothes.

The above mentioned points out that for the investigator’s purposes to falsify the murder case and present it as a suicide the witness was imposed to give a false testimony. In all the episodes the witness gives an obviously false testimony which is directed by the investigator. It also becomes clear that no appropriate control was taken over the investigation of the case by the relevant bodies, or all the illegal actions of the preliminary investigation body have been carried out and are carried out with their knowledge and connivance.

In addition, in his decision investigator M. Nalbandyan writes, “On September 6, 2013 based on the materials of the criminal case number 90259213 a decision was made in respect of initiating a new criminal case under Article 358.1, Part 3, Point 1, allotting the number 90260413, connecting it to the criminal case number 90259213 and proceeding with the preliminary investigation under the criminal case number 90259213”.

The Article 358 of the Criminal Code mentioned by the investigator is entitled “The court verdict must be legal, grounded and justified”. It has no connection with the decision and cannot have any since such issues are resolved by the RA Criminal Procedure Code rather than by the RA Criminal Code. However, the Article of the Criminal Procedure Code is entitled as “The court verdict must be legal, grounded and justified”.

It is at least strange that the investigation of the murder case is carried out by a state official who knows neither the RA Criminal Code, nor the RA Criminal Procedure Code.

Based on all these facts, the victim’s successor challenges the investigator of the case M. Nalbandyan once more, the Head of the 4^th Garrison Investigative Service of the RA MD IS (Investigation Service), Head of the RA MD IS Armen Harutyunyan, the Prosecutor supervising the case and the RA Military Prosecutor Artak Harutyunyan. He also petitions for assigning the preliminary investigation to another investigative body. Applications regarding this were sent to the RA Prosecutor and Minister of Defense.

According to expert R. Martirosyan, it is necessary to eliminate M. Nalbandyan’s groundless decision in respect of carrying out postmortem forensic-psychological and forensic-psychiatric integrated investigation. Moreover, the investigative body should carry out unbiased, comprehensive and profound investigation which is a constitutional requirement and which has not been done up to day.

According to the president of Peace Dialogue NGO, the resolution of these issues requires a compound approach.

According to the president of Peace Dialogue NGO Edgar Khachatryan, the current issues in the RA armed forces require serious treatment. The researches carried out by the NGO within its project Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia show that such issues are numerous and require urgent solutions.

“The current issues in the army are numerous. It is a serious issue when in most cases a soldier’s murder is presented as a suicide. The conclusions and the reports by our specialist show that the investigative body does not take proper and accurate actions and the cases are being closed. In some cases the fingerprints on the weapon disappear no matter it was a murder or a suicide”, said Edgar Khachatryan to “Aravot”. He also added that similar issues occurred both in the actions of the investigative body and in the judicial system.

In addition, the NGO president mentions that there are also issues connected with corruption and the implementation of the disciplinary statute.

“Now in the army we have issues with corruption and with the implementation of the statute. It is a major problem when a random person can become a high-rank officer and do whatever he wants only by paying money to some people”, says the president.

According to him, the problem of establishing order in the army, however, should not rely only on the soldier’s self-consciousness: the state plays a serious role in here. “The responsibility of the state is to establish order in the army not just leave it on the soldier’s self-consciousness; the soldier’s self-consciousness plays a little role in this issue. A compound approach is required”, says Edgar Khachatryan. However, he also mentions that it is again the society that should make the state work. “There is both lack of political will from the authorities to resolve the current issues and lack of civil demand when the citizen himself demands from the authorities solutions to the issue of establishing order in the army”.

To bring a change to this situation the project Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia initiated by Peace Dialogue NGO last year also aims at raising the level of demands in the society. Within the project an internet website has been made related to the RA armed forces. Moreover, activities are carried out with future conscripts in order to make them aware of their rights in the army. “Although the current situation in the army is not only the result of the lack of awareness, nevertheless, a conscious person is more likely to protect his/her rights, be a claimer and form that civil demand. If you shape a demanding citizen, he/ she can present his/her demand on his own”, summarizes Edgar Khachatryan.

Author: www.aravot.am