On October 17, 2018, the injured party of suicide inciting case of serviceman Gevorg Khachatryan presented a judicial speech in Syunik region General Jurisdiction Court.
In his speech, the representative of the injured party’s successor, HCA Vanadzor president Artur Sakunts mentioned that the injured party considers the defendants’ guilt in the incriminated act to be proved and presented its substantiations.
Artur Sakunts first touched upon the testimonies of witnesses and injured persons interrogated within the framework of the case and their contradictions. He expressed his position that they do not consider trustworthy the statements that preliminary investigation testimonies were given under the psychological pressure of the investigator and this is what the contradictions are attributed to.
The injured party considered the investigator’s petition illogical and expressed the position that the testimonies were written in such a detailed way that the investigator could not have dictated testimonies with such details. Besides, the motive of the investigator to do so is not clear, moreover, the criminal case on this initiated on the basis of the prosecutor’s report was dismissed, since it was substantiated that the investigators did not direct the witnesses and the injured persons.
A. Sakunts also mentioned that some of the interrogated persons had the opportunity to reconcile testimonies with one another. According to the injured party’s opinion, the contradictions between the testimonies are attributed not to the investigator’s pressure but to the actions initiated by the defendants, particularly H. Muradyan and his defenders.
With regard to the fact that the defendants and the defenders attribute G. Khachatryan’s suicide to having problems in his family, A. Sakunts mentioned that he understands the defenders’ obligation to protect their constituents in all the ways not prohibited by law, but it should not be done by way of distorting the facts and reality of the case.
According to the injured party, both the witnesses’ and injured persons’ testimonies and the results of the expertise substantiate the accusations against the defendants. The post-mortem psychological expertise of the court recorded that G. Khacatryan did not have such individual psychological features which could have had essential influence on his decision to commit a suicide.
Besides, experts have seen probable cause-and-effect link in H. Muradyan’s actions and Gevorg Khachatryan’s psychological state before committing a suicide.
The injured party also states that the atmosphere in the frontier post and the relations of the servicemen did not comply with statutory requirements, H. Muradyan had a dominant position and a close communication with M. Voskanyan, head of the frontier post, which is beyond the scope of the statutory relationship between the head and the subordinate.
Thus, the injured party considers the guilt of defendants H. Muradyan, M. Voskanyan and H. Kalashyan proved and finds that they should be held criminally liable.
After listening to the victim’s successor representative A. Sakunts’s speech, the defendant party asked for time to familiarize with it, the session was postponed.