HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Zhanna Alexanyan

A Murder in the Army

At three o’clock in the morning, at Military Unit N in Martakert, Nagorno Karabakh, a battle alarm was sounded because of a suspected enemy violation. By morning, it was clear that everything was peaceful in the border zone, the silence broken only by animals. On his way out of the barracks, Private Onik Voskanyan saw that the sentry, Kerob Muradyan, was not at his post. He woke First Sergeant Samvel Baghdasaryan to report him missing. The sergeant headed toward the post calling the sentry’s name. On the way he saw a dead body in an antitank pit and ran back in horror. He reported the incident to the platoon leader. A murder investigation was opened the same day. Private Kerob Muradyan had been murdered.

The accused is not obliged to testify against himself

The preliminary investigation of the case was conducted in three phases. First Sergeant Samuel Baghdasaryan was charged with premeditated murder. Then, “in view of the lack of evidence of his involvement in the crime”, criminal charges against him were dropped. At the same time, the criminal investigation was suspended, “in view of the fact that the person who committed the crime is unknown”. After 13 months at liberty, Baghdasaryan was again brought into the military prosecutor’s office, where investigator Samvel Hovhannissyan charged, arrested, and then detained him the same day.

Only the prosecutor general of the republic has the right to re-open a case, within six months of its suspension, unless new evidence has come to light. But this case was re-opened after thirteen months, and not by the prosecutor general, but by investigator Samvel Hovannissyan of the military prosecutor’s office, and later on by the military prosecutor, Gagik Jhangiryan. According to lawyer Zaruhi Danielyan, no new evidence was mentioned. Significant violations of the law took place during the investigation, and they can’t be erased by the request of the investigator and the lawyer to re-open the case for further investigation. Yet on July 3, 2001 the Court of First Instance of the Shengavit District of Yerevan sentenced Samvel Baghdasaryan to 14 years in prison for the crime of murder with aggravating circumstances and other counts.

Although Samvel pled not guilty, the verdict was based on his previous confession and a videotaped reconstruction of the murder based on his testimony, made by the Martakert prosecutor’s office. But according to the constitution ofArmeniaand other laws, said Danielyan, “The accused is not obliged to testify against himself. No responsibility can be placed on the accused for testimony or other explanations given by the accused.” During the second investigation, Baghdasaryan withdrew his confession on the grounds that it had been coerced. Other soldiers confirmed that he had been subjected to violence. Moreover, when this was reported, the investigator was removed from his job: “ Reliable witnesses in the case, the suspect, and the operative data all confirm that investigator Aram Baghdasaryan employed illegal methods during the investigation. After I made my report, he was fired from his post and the case was handed over to the military prosecutor’s office,” wrote Rouben Martirosyan, former chief of the department of emergency situations of the supervisory service of the defense ministry, who took part in the investigation, in response to Danielyan’s inquiry.

Baghdasaryan’s lawyer told us, “The court explains its verdict based on facts that in no way prove that the murder was committed by my client. There is not one piece of evidence against him.” Danielyan demands that the verdict be overturned and her client exonerated. Examination of the files from the preliminary investigation and the trial reveals that the court ignored or failed to address numerous violations by the investigators.

Who killed Kerob Muradyan?

The Muradyan brothers, Artiom and Kerob, served in the same military unit. Artiom was discharged, and his brother ended up serving only two months. A couple of days before the incident, some family members, Artiom among them, had come to visit Kerob. The servicemen who were assigned to Post 110 on December 2nd, spent time with them, including lunch together. That night, the post was put on code-1 military readiness, during which platoon leader Melkon Tonoyan and acting platoon leader Sirekan Amirkhanyan came to conduct a review. Amirkhanyan stayed on, at the orders of his commanding officer.

After the alarm was called off, between 6 and 8 o’clock in the morning, two of the six servicemen at the post, H. Gevorgyan and H. Kyoroghlyan, went off duty and went to sleep. They were replaced only by one soldier, Kerob Muradyan - the other, Onik Voskanyan continued to sleep soundly during the alarm and after it was called off. The fifth soldier, Mikayel Navasardyan, went to a nearby village at 8 o’clock in the morning to get water, and returned later than usual. According to the servicemen, it takes 50 minutes at the most to fetch water. It is the duty of the commander to keep order at the post, but he was asleep as well.

Around ten o’clock in the morning, Onik Voskanyan woke the commander, Samvel Bagdasaryan, and told him that the sentry was not at his post. Baghdasaryan left the barracks to find out what had happened, and when he saw the body he thought it was the work of the enemy, since there had been an alarm at night. Baghdasaryan ordered the soldiers to arm themselves take position near the barracks. At that moment, Amirkhanyan and Navasardyan ran toward them from Post 109. The investigation never ascertained the chronology of events, or found out where Amirkhanyan was at the time of the incident. Navasardyan’s testimony is contradictory. It has not been discovered how long it had taken him to bring water, whether he had seen Kerob, or when he had gone to Post 109 with Amirkhanyan. And sentry Georgy Grigoryan witnesses that he saw them on the road next to the post.

Grigoryan heard shooting from the direction of post 109 at 9 o’clock. It was ascertained by the investigation that was the time the murder was committed. Platoon leader Torosyan describes Mikayel Navasardyan’s testimony during the second phase of the preliminary investigation as “highly suspicious”, and does not rule out that “just before the incident Navasardyan was at the scene of the action – in the antitank pit along with the victim”. During the third phase of the investigation, it became clear that Amirkhanyan and Navasardyan had leftArmenia. They never testified in the second phase of the trial, either.

Testimonies gotten by beatings

Aram Baghdassaryan, an investigator in the Martakert prosecutor’s office, knows many ways to solve crimes. He brought in all the soldiers of the military unit by force, had them beaten and humiliated, and then put them all in a cell together. “You decide who is guilty, then come and tell me”, he ordered. In the cell they were supposed to decide who would take responsibility for the murder. They were supposed to find out “the truth”. In the preliminary testimonies, no one uttered the name “Sevo” (Blacky) - Sirekan Amirkhanyan. The servicemen were afraid to. Onik Voskanyan, too, was known in the unit as an “authority” - a tough guy. It is no accident that he was not at his post with Kerob Muradyan. Two of the six soldiers in the cell were “authorities”. They decided to pin the murder on Samvel Baghdasaryan. One soldier testified in court that Amirkhanyan and Voskanyan had beaten Baghdasaryan to make him confess. After that, the investigator put Sergeant Baghdasaryan into a car and drove in the direction of Shushi. The sergeant testified to this during the preliminary investigation, and it was confirmed in court by Onik Voskanyan. This is how they made Baghdasaryan confess his “guilt”.

Why did they kill Kerob Muradyan?

According to the verdict, the motive for the crime was an argument between Baghdasaryan and Muradyan, which allegedly originated when the sergeant found the sentry asleep at his post. They exchanged heated words, and then Baghdasaryan took Muradyan’s automatic gun and shot and killed him. According to the testimonies of all servicemen present at the outpost, including the platoon leader, Kerob Muradyan and and Samvel Baghdasaryan were friends. They both did well in their military service. At the time he was killed, Muradyan was wearing Baghdasaryan’s coat, which he had given him to keep warm on sentry duty. They were relatives from the same village. Indeed, at their relatives’ insistence, Baghdasaryan had asked the platoon leader to have Muradyan transferred to his post. This was because Sevo Amirkhanyan, who was an “authority”, a tough guy in the military unit, had been bullying Kerob Muradyan. When learned about Muradyan’s death Baghdasaryan wept, saying, “They killed my cousin”. Melkon Tonoyan, the platoon leader who was first on the scene sent Amirkhanyan back to his primary station - post # 108. According to some witnesses, Amirkhanyan had come to the scene with a weapon, and left unarmed. The murder weapon was not found, although the court recognized the automatic gun attached to Kerob Muradyan as “material evidence” -- the alleged murder weapon.

Evidence that doesn’t prove the suspect’s guilt

The verdict was based on a videotaped reconstruction of the murder. It is 18 minutes long but is interrupted six times, for four minutes. “The investigator would interrupt, make suggestions and then they would continue videotaping”, Baghdasaryan told the court. The videotaped reconstruction of the murder conflicts with expert opinion. According to the videotaped version, the shots were fired from a distance of 8-10 meters, but according to a comprehensive expert examination, the wounds were made point-blank. The description of the head-wounds doesn’t correspond to the direction of the shots, etc. Moreover, the expert examinations contradict each other as well. “The court chose the expert examination that it considered suitable. There is no trustworthy expert center in Armenia”, says Ruben Martirosyan, a former employee of the Ministry of Defense. “The weapon that was used for the crime has not been discovered”, states lawyer Zaruhi Danielyan. And Baghdasaryan’s fingerprints were not found on the weapon considered “material evidence”. The Court of First Instance found Samvel Baghdasaryan guilty of the crime without sufficient sound proof of his guilt.

Who is the real criminal?

Koriun Muradyan, the father of the murdered serviceman, does not believe that Baghdasaryan killed his son. “I have been asking and will keep asking - Why are none of the officers here? Where are they?” he asked in the Court of Fist Instance. He told Martirosyan that his son was killed by an officer and that he even knew which. Zaruhi Danielyan demanded that the verdict be overturned and appealed to the Review Court. The months-long trial clarified nothing. The prosecution’s charges are very rarely altered by the Armenian courts. “The verdict of the Review Court doesn’t differ much from the verdict of the Court of First Instance. The court’s position regarding the two witnesses who are out of the country, and many other discrepancies, was never clarified. It has never become clear which of the three contradictory expert examinations the court based its verdict on”, the lawyer says. She and the accused took their case to the Court of Appeals. On March 7, 2002 the Chamber for Criminal and Military Cases of the Court of Appeals ruled to leave the verdict of the two other courts in force. 
The Court of Appeals also submitted a petition to the Military Prosecutor’s Office to institute proceedings against Sirekan “Sevo” Amirkhanyan on four counts. The explanation was: “Being ‘an authority’ - or tough guy -- he introduced his own rules in the military unit, as evidenced by the fact that he would make arrangements regarding the goods and packages received by the other servicemen -- he would decide how much food each serviceman should receive. He would force the servicemen returning from leave to pay him. If they didn’t follow his rules he would insult, humiliate, and beat them”.

“The prosecutor’s office is obliged to declare a search and find Sirekan Amirkhanyan,” says Mher Khachatryan, the chairman of the Chamber for Criminal and Military Cases of the Court of Appeals, “His testimony will clarify many things. It is not excluded that new substantial circumstances will arise”.

This is the first time that the highest court has passed such a decision and acknowledged that crime exists in the army. This may seem to be a special case, but it is already an established fact that this phenomenon is widespread in the army. Unfortunately, unwritten laws prevail in the army, not the service regulations that are quoted in the courts. Statistics show that in peacetime conditions the majority of crimes are committed in the outposts. Here the “authorities” who enjoy the patronage of officers act like masters and bosses. Their laws are the ones to obey.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter