The statement given by Samvel Nikoyan, President of the National Assembly’s Temporary Committee examining the March 1st events, to a foreign reporter in which it was disclosed that there was at least one sniped within the ranks of the police and the subsequent publication of the news by Levon Zurabyan who coordinates the Armenian National Congress (HAK), has absolutely created a new reality in the ongoing March 1st case.

The Pubic Prosecutor’s Office immediately confirmed the participation of a sharpshooter in the operations carried out by the police in the vicinity of the French Embassy and gave a rather feeble explanation for why; that the sharpshooter was present merely to safeguard the security of the police even though he had already managed to injure one citizen.

It turns out that law enforcement wasn’t able to locate that citizen. The question as to why neither the police nor the public prosecutor didn’t make such a revelation from the start if, as they state, the sharpshooter’s participation was innocuous and of a defensive nature, remains unanswered. What is interesting, however, is that in this official clarification by the prosecutor office is a red thread that leads to the fact that the identity of the sharpshooter wasn’t revealed. And this is the case when, in essence, no one was interested in finding out the name of the sharpshooter. This is because it was clear to all that he wasn’t following a course of independent action by shooting at and injuring citizens, but rather following orders from the top. It was also clear that by identifying the sharpshooter would ultimately lead to the identity of those who gave the order to shoot and so on all the way up the chain of command. Such an untangling of the ball of thread could result in unforeseen consequences and this is why it was necessary for law enforcement not to immediately identify the sharpshooter.

Perhaps this is also the reason why the detail of the sharpshooter’s participation was, to the extent possible, given short shrift in the criminal case that has been opened, and why he essentially evaded responsibility by merely testifying. That is why the pre-investigation examining body requested from the National Assembly’s temporary committee to return all the personal information concerning the sharpshooter and not publicizing most of it.

However, if the identity of the sharpshooter wasn’t all that important, it’s a totally different matter regarding the identity of who gave orders to the sharpshooter. This is exactly the point of contact that could shed light on the entire matter and answer a host of questions, and law enforcement was quite aware of this. The revelation of the sharpshooter’s participation reminded them that the same could happen in other “sensitive” cases. Thus, the police and public prosecutor decided that if information, in any case, is to get out that it preferable that it happen with their supervision and directed as they see fit: in other words, to manage the flow of information and thus better control the unfolding situation. And the process soon began.

Just a couple of days later it was revealed that the police used firearms despite the fact that the police and public prosecutor have denied that this was the case for eight months straight. A bit later, and as a continuation of this, it  suddenly was revealed that Grigor Grigoryan, former Deputy Police Chief and former Commander of the Police Military, had personally given the sharpshooter the order to only fire once. It was the same Grigor Grigoryan who, a few days after March 1st, made an emotional TV appearance describing how the armed mob had fired shots at 18 year-old policemen only equipped with rubber truncheons and shields.

Suddenly, a short time later, Police Deputy Chief Hovhannes Tamamyan gave a press conference and declared that he directed police operations at Freedom Square in the early morning hours of March 1st under the direct supervision of Hayk Harutyunyan, who was Police Chief at the time. It is of note that it was also Grigor Grigoryan who informed the National Assembly’s temporary committee that on March 1st, from Paronyan Street, he was in direct contact with ROA Police Chief Hayk Harutyunyan via cell-phone. Furthermore, considering the on-site “accounts” given by Grigoryan, it was Hayk Harutyunyan that sought the security of the police at the conflict zone by calling in equipment from the Defense Ministry. At a minimum, this means that not only was the Police Chief informed of the growing events on the ground but that he was directing and assisting the police actions.

Put another way, the revelations ball of thread has been untangled, reaching up till Hayk Harutyunyan, encompassing police actions both at Freedom Square and near the French Embassy. All are indirectly making it understood that if there is someone is looking for clarification they should seek out the former police chief. Indeed, could Hayk Harutyunyan have assumed the entire weight of responsibility on his shoulders alone? This is what the National Assembly temporary committee needs to find out and it is the most important and most pivotal question that it must answer. Committee President Samvel Nikoyan has stated that the group will certainly call in Harutyunyan in order to get his corresponding take on the matter.  Essentially the ball is now in Hayk Harutyunyan’s court and no one can guess how he’ll play the game. One thing is clear: Hayk Harutyunyan, to put it mildly, is between a rock and a hard place. Should he assume total responsibility himself or should he offer new evidence and thus point fingers in the direction of higher-ups and by doing so getting himself off the hook.

Today, none who carry responsibility for the actions of the police on March 1st remain in their positions, except for Tamamyan. Naturally, this is just a method to avoid responsibility, if not totally then at least partially. Out of this group it has only been Grigor Grigoryan that has stated anything to the public via the National Assembly’s temporary committee. The others remain tight-lipped. However strange, it is also characteristic that those directly connected with the events of March 1st have been dismissed from their posts.

This reality, coupled with recent developments leads to one simple conclusion – the search for scapegoats continues. This is one case however when the search will not end without sacrifices.