Another two witnesses give contradictory evidence on case<br /> of Alexander Arzumanian and Suren Sirunian<br />


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.
  -   Politics