Tweet
ANOTHER WITNESS IN ARTAK NAZARYAN TRIAL REFUTES EARLIER TESTIMONY
epress.am
03.28.2012
In a Tavush regional court on Tuesday in the trial of rifle platoon
commander Artak Nazaryan, who died during a period of non combat on a
military base on Jul. 27, 2010, Judge Samvel Mardanyan rejected the
victim party's motion for the judge to withdraw on the grounds that
he is not impartial.
This news was conveyed to Epress.am by Ruben Martirosyan, who is
representing the victim's legal successor in the case. Martirosyan
added that state prosecutor Harutyun Harutyunyan said he doesn't
refute the opinion that testimonies were fraudulently exhorted from
witnesses; however, he was not by the investigator's side at the time
testimonies were made and was unaware any such illegal actions.
Examined in court on Mar. 27 was witness Misha Gabrielyan, who, in
2010, was the commander of the military outpost where Nazaran served.
In court, Gabrielyan said he knows nothing, but the prosecution found
contradictions between his pre-trial testimony and the one he made
in court, so he read the pre-trial testimony, according to which the
witness said he discovered that soldiers accused of killing Nazaryan
had beaten Artak Nazaryan. In court, however, the witness, Gabrielyan,
refuted this, saying he said no such thing to the investigator.
Gabrielyan only said that, according to his information, there was
an argument and a scuffle between the soldiers accused of the crime
and Nazaryan. Note, this is not the first time discrepancies were
noticed between a witness' testimony in court and the one he gave
before the trial.
The next court date was set for Apr. 17.
epress.am
03.28.2012
In a Tavush regional court on Tuesday in the trial of rifle platoon
commander Artak Nazaryan, who died during a period of non combat on a
military base on Jul. 27, 2010, Judge Samvel Mardanyan rejected the
victim party's motion for the judge to withdraw on the grounds that
he is not impartial.
This news was conveyed to Epress.am by Ruben Martirosyan, who is
representing the victim's legal successor in the case. Martirosyan
added that state prosecutor Harutyun Harutyunyan said he doesn't
refute the opinion that testimonies were fraudulently exhorted from
witnesses; however, he was not by the investigator's side at the time
testimonies were made and was unaware any such illegal actions.
Examined in court on Mar. 27 was witness Misha Gabrielyan, who, in
2010, was the commander of the military outpost where Nazaran served.
In court, Gabrielyan said he knows nothing, but the prosecution found
contradictions between his pre-trial testimony and the one he made
in court, so he read the pre-trial testimony, according to which the
witness said he discovered that soldiers accused of killing Nazaryan
had beaten Artak Nazaryan. In court, however, the witness, Gabrielyan,
refuted this, saying he said no such thing to the investigator.
Gabrielyan only said that, according to his information, there was
an argument and a scuffle between the soldiers accused of the crime
and Nazaryan. Note, this is not the first time discrepancies were
noticed between a witness' testimony in court and the one he gave
before the trial.
The next court date was set for Apr. 17.