Another two witnesses give contradictory evidence on case
of Alexander Arzumanian and Suren Sirunian
21-04-2009 17:00:00 | Armenia | Politics
YEREVAN, APRIL 21, NOYAN TAPAN. The trial on the case of
former RA Foreign Minister Alexander Arzumanian and Suren
Sirunian accused of organizing mass disorders on 2008 March 1
continued on April 20 at Yerevan's Kentron and Nork-Marash
communities' first instance court presided over by judge
Mnatsakan Martirosian. Two witnesses were interrogated at the
sitting and the preliminary investigation evidence of another
witness was publicized at the sitting. At the prosecutor party's
suggestion two witnesses, Mayis Sahakian and Hovhannes Mkhoyan
were removed from the list of witnesses. Thus at the April 22
sitting it is envisaged to interrogate the last two out of 15
witnesses invited for giving evidence.
Witness Emma Beglarian interrogated at the sitting said
that by coincidence after the midday on March 1, 2008 she
appeared in the territory near Yerevan Mayor's Office, which was
very crowded. According to the witness, S. Sirunian
distinguished himself by activity, he "was running hither and
thither," but she personally did not hear what he said to his
co-thinkers. E. Beglarian also said that she did not witness
any conflict.
At the same time the witness confessed that she took part
in the action of protest organized near first President Levon
Ter-Petrosian's house, which was in detail covered on TV.
The testimony of the second witness, Ashot Haroutiunian
contradicted his preliminary investigation evidence: in response
to defence party's questions in many cases he denied some
assertions he did earlier and in response to prosecutor party's
questions confirmed the very assertions. The witness also mixed
up whether he witnessed this or that episode or saw it by
television. A. Haroutiunian confessed that the investigator
"helped" him to formulate his thoughts, as well as to enumerate
the movement activists' names at the same time mentioning that
the investigator did not exert pressure upon him. The defence
party also drew court's attention to the fact that there is also
contradiction in the issue of time of witness' giving evidence:
according to the witness, he was interrogated 15-20 days after
the March 1 events, while the evidence was dated by April 29.