InternationalSome naïve questions about the March 1 investigation
Published: Thursday November 13, 2008
A scene from Yerevan on March 1, 2008, when clashes between protesters and security forces left 10 people dead. Photolure
Yerevan - According to the Prosecutor General's office, almost all the cases separated from the main March 1 case have been heard in court and more criminal cases are still being investigated. As reported in the Reporter two weeks ago, the last in the series is the Case of the Seven, in which charges have been filed against members of parliament Miasnik Malkhasian, Hakob Hakobyan, and Sassun Mikaelian, former foreign minister Alexander Arzumanian, and another three people. They are accused of "undertaking activities aimed at seizing the state authority by force, in violation of the Constitution" and "organizing mass riots leading to deaths."
The investigation into this case has concluded, but the trial has not yet begun, as the defense lawyers are still getting acquainted with the materials of the criminal case, which are being provided in parts. In essence, the lawyers are discovering new details, presenting requests to the Special Investigations Service (SIS) to obtain this or that material.
And so, on November 10, the defense lawyers for the seven made the following request: they asked for a copy of Levon Ter-Petrossian's interrogation record.
The whole issue is that Mr. Ter-Petrossian has not been interrogated. The lawyers are trying to find out why the SIS has not interrogated someone who is treated as the main guilty person in various materials of the March 1 criminal case.
The Armenian Reporter has asked the SIS about this matter more than once over the past months, and most recently last week. The question arises because the Prosecutor General's office has named the former president, Mr. Ter-Petrossian, as one of the main organizers of the events of March 1.
On March 1 and 2, the Prosecutor General made such accusations. In particular, the original investigation was opened in the following terms: "After the publication of the preliminary results of the February 19, 2008, Republic of Armenia presidential elections, Levon Ter-Petrossian, presidential candidate, Members of the National Assembly Khachatur Sukiassian and Sassun Mikaelian, Nikol Pashinian, chief editor of Haykakan Zhamanak daily, and others organized and conducted nonstop mass public events, in violation of the law, in Freedom Square and called on the crowds not to obey the demands of the police on duty."
On March 2 the Prosecutor General's office disseminated the following official information: "The participants and organizers of the public events that were organized by presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian and his supporters, in violation of the law, have encouraged mass disorder in the capital city by disobeying the legitimate demands of the police, setting more than a dozen or so private or state vehicles on fire, looting and destroying the Moscow House adjacent to Yerevan City Hall and surrounding shops, and breaking the windows and doors of the City Hall and other adjacent buildings."
Moreover, during a press conference on March 4, Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepian announced, "It is obvious that these activities were organized. The evidence obtained today shows that and all the organized activities were controlled from one center."
Naturally the question arises whether that "one center" has been revealed during the preliminary investigation. The other question is whether Mr. Ter-Petrossian is considered the chief organizer; if so, why he has he not been interrogated? Assuming even that he is not considered the chief organizer, still, as an individual in the limelight of the events, he surely must have been of interest to the detectives, even if only as a witness.
Meanwhile, other questions arise. In order to fully investigate the events of March 1 and 2, has the SIS questioned former president Robert Kocharian or former police chief Haik Haroutunian? If not, why not?
During a press conference following the signing of the decree announcing a state of emergency until March 20, Mr. Kocharian cited a very specific justification for the state of emergency. He said protestors had opened fire on police officers. "The shootings were occurring in situations when unarmed protestors were standing behind those firing," he said. "The shooter emerged from behind a vehicle, fired on the soldiers, and then hid. Opening fire on him would have also meant the deaths of unarmed people in the proximity."
Have the investigators discovered who opened fire on the soldiers, hiding behind unarmed protestors? It is hard to say. During the trials so far, no one has been accused of opening fire on the soldiers or police officers. But when Mr. Kocharian was making that announcement, he gave the impression that he had seen footage of the scene he was describing. Or perhaps he received a vivid report from a very senior police official. Has an attempt been made to clarify the basis on which Mr. Kocharian made his announcements - and the decisions that he said were based on them? In other words, where is the footage? Or who gave the report, and on what basis?
On October 24, the Prosecutor General's office reported, "Based on data clarified during the preliminary investigation, including the forensic examination results, 42 police officers and conscripts received injuries from shrapnel from explosive devices used during the mass riots organized in areas adjacent to the Yerevan City Hall and the central streets on March 1 and 2, 2008". Absolutely nothing is said about those injured by weapons. Whereas, for example, on March 4, in its official report, the Ministry of Health had stated, "131 injured - 72 soldiers and 59 citizens - received medical treatment in different medical establishments in Yerevan on March 1 and 2. Sixteen of the 72 soldiers and 18 of the 59 civilians were injured by weapons." When we asked the Prosecutor General's spokesperson Sona Truzian what happened to those soldiers and civilians who had received injures from weapons, she answered that by saying that "injuries from weapons" meant "injuries from shrapnel." That is not entirely convincing.
