Tweet
Director of Harsnakar Avoided Questions
Tehmine Yenokyan
13:12 29/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/right/view/28547
The trial of Vahe Avetyan's murder continues. The witnesses are
interrogated. During the previous hearing the director of Harsnakar
Restaurant was examined. The counsel for the defense was very cautious
about the questions. The director of the restaurant avoided some
questions. The counsel for the defense behaved especially aggressively
towards those questions referring to the process and requirements to
hiring the accused.
Advocate Tigran Yegoryan said the accused had not signed employment
contracts with the restaurant. Their contracts were signed after the
incident. One can see with the naked eye that the signatures are
false, and they demanded a graphological test. However, this and other
motions have been postponed until the study of written evidence.
Investigation was not carried out duly. The injured party made more
inclusive and substantial testimonies which the investigative party
had not found out and had not displayed due diligence.
During the cross-examination of the injured party the counsel for the
defense found discrepancies between the testimonies during the
investigation and the trial but those discrepancies were clarified
through consistent questions and the injured party gave different
clarifications.
It is notable that the witness Hrachya Zohrabyan denied at the
beginning that Harsnakar was owned by Ruben Hairapetyan whereas
according to its statutes, Ruben Hairapetyan owns 100 percent of its
shares. There are plenty of other facts and circumstances which are
being clarified. The investigation continues.
From: A. Papazian
Tehmine Yenokyan
13:12 29/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/right/view/28547
The trial of Vahe Avetyan's murder continues. The witnesses are
interrogated. During the previous hearing the director of Harsnakar
Restaurant was examined. The counsel for the defense was very cautious
about the questions. The director of the restaurant avoided some
questions. The counsel for the defense behaved especially aggressively
towards those questions referring to the process and requirements to
hiring the accused.
Advocate Tigran Yegoryan said the accused had not signed employment
contracts with the restaurant. Their contracts were signed after the
incident. One can see with the naked eye that the signatures are
false, and they demanded a graphological test. However, this and other
motions have been postponed until the study of written evidence.
Investigation was not carried out duly. The injured party made more
inclusive and substantial testimonies which the investigative party
had not found out and had not displayed due diligence.
During the cross-examination of the injured party the counsel for the
defense found discrepancies between the testimonies during the
investigation and the trial but those discrepancies were clarified
through consistent questions and the injured party gave different
clarifications.
It is notable that the witness Hrachya Zohrabyan denied at the
beginning that Harsnakar was owned by Ruben Hairapetyan whereas
according to its statutes, Ruben Hairapetyan owns 100 percent of its
shares. There are plenty of other facts and circumstances which are
being clarified. The investigation continues.
From: A. Papazian