During yesterday’s session of the parliamentary ad hoc commission on investigation of March 1-2 events Vahagn Harutyunyan, a senior law-enforcement official leading the separate criminal investigation into the post-election violence stated that many of the provisions of the death of police officer Hamlet Tadevosyan brought up by the fact-finding group are mildly said “senseless” and that the investigative body doesn’t agree with those.
According to Harutyunyan the fact-finding group had a purpose to mar the facts revealed through the investigation. According to him “only the foolish person can state that he/she worked without any mistakes and drawbacks and that even technical omission wasn’t made.” According to him perhaps they might have had some technical omissions, which cannot be considered deliberate one. But those mistakes were not so many to affect the results of the investigation and their number wasn’t high either. He also added that the estimation of evidence is the job of the court and not the fact-finding group. “It is senseless to seek any deliberate actions here,” he said and added, “I wouldn’t like to evaluate that conclusion now but it has a certain motive and direction, which is not desirable and unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the fact-finding group didn’t ask the opinion of the investigative body about their conclusion. I think that it would be better to receive simplifications from the investigative body or the prosecutor’s office. And only in the event of irrefutable facts would it be right to circulate their conclusion.” According to Harutyunyan the most unacceptable thing is publication of the conclusion of the fact-finding group in media. And this is said not because the investigative body is confused about any of the facts but because a wrong setup of opinions is formed in the society. As a response to the comment that the investigative state body is trying to ignore the facts revealed by the fact-finding group and thus tries to conceal the reality Harutyunyan said, “The investigative body doesn’t evaluate the activities of either the fact-finding group or the ad hoc commission. We are only expressing our opinion about the provisions, which contradict the reality.” As a response o the question of the ad hoc member Naira Zohrabyan as to whether the investigative body is totally confident about its statements on Tadevosyan’s death and whether there is the need to return to the investigation of that case, Harutyunyan said, “Yes, I was speaking about shortcomings but would like to mention that those didn’t affect the truthfulness of the investigative results and they couldn’t radically affect the outcome.” As to the fact finding group, Vahagn Harutyunyan’s statement on its political grounds is a surprise from the point that the group has been set up for non-political activities, proceeding of which the members of the group are neither specialists nor political figures and their work, by the order of the president, is secret which contradicts the principles of politics as politics cannot be closed or non-public. In particular, Harutyunyan stated that this group has been set up on political grounds. He also stated that in the conclusion it is written that Hamlet Tadevosyan died in result of a bomb exploded in his hands, which in Harutyunyan’s words is impossible. To the question whether the fact-finding group has the right to circulate their conclusion Harutyunyan said, “I am not saying they don’t have the right to do so. All I am saying that first of all this conclusion got nothing to do with the investigation and the actual facts. Secondly, I am curious under what circumstances they found out those facts and who they questioned.” The leader of the New Times party Aram Karapetyan also spoke about the statements of Harutyunyan about the fact-finding group. He said, “If this document is the conclusion of the collective group, the chair of which is the representative of the RA president how can it have political motives?” The leader of the United Labor Party (ULP), Gurgen Arsenyan, reminded Vahagn Harutyunyan that during the previous sitting Haik Harutyunyan announced that on March 1 a group of Yerkrapahs had burst into the Metropol Hotel and demanded to vacate the building. Arsenyan wondered whether an inquiry had been launched in this respect. The head of the Criminal Investigation Group said they had been given no assignments. According to Mr. Harutyunyan, the police possessed on-line information, but it wasn’t confirmed later. Thereby, another contradiction was revealed between the representatives of the two law-enforcement structures. Arsenyan tried to find out whether actually the hotel was being seized or assault in that direction. He reminded that the former chief of police Hayk Harutyunyan, who was one of the key players on March 1-2, declared at the ad hoc session that a group of Yerkrapahs entered the hotel and threatened to seize it. However, Harutyunyan once again denied this by saying that they didn’t have such a testimony. To the question of the chair of the ad hoc Samvel Nikoyan as to whether it is not expedient to launch a new criminal case based on the recent statements of the former chief of police Vahagn Harutyunyan said, “It’s not worth starting a new case.” He said that this matter can be easily included in the already existing larger case and be investigated in that framework. Note that recently the fact-finding group sent to the parliamentary commission its conclusion on the circumstances of police officer Hamlet Tadevosyan’s death, who, according to the official data, was killed from a bomb thrown by a demonstrator. The fact-finding group found out that the preliminary investigation was conducted wrongly, and Hamlet Tadevosyan died in the result of a bomb explosion in his hands. Vahagn Harutyunyan confirmed that the officer had really died of a bomb but it is still unknown who threw the bomb and whether it was a bomb or something else. Vahagn Harutyunyan called it "an unidentified explosive of the investigation." Vigen Adamyan, a senior judicial doctor, said they were unable to identify the grenade as they were prohibited to "spoil the cosmetic appearance of the body." Let’s remind that Hamlet Tadevosyan had been wounded in the leg, and the victim’s "cosmetic appearance" couldn’t be spoiled anyway. "Surely, the preliminary investigation was conducted with apparent shortcomings," said Vahagn Harutyunyan. "However, they will not affect the unbiased investigation of the criminal case." The member of the March 1 parliamentary commission, Aram Karapetyan, asked whether the bomb, which killed Vahagn Harutyunyan, is known and who was to throw it and the distance and near what part of the body it exploded, and whether Hamlet Tadevosyan had a bulletproof vest. Vahagn Harutyunyan answered that Hamlet Tadevosyan was wearing a bulletproof vest but the person who threw the bomb and the type of the bomb are not known. Vahagn Tadevosyan stated that the conclusion of the fact-finding group has political grounds. The head of the commission Samvel Nikoyan asked what the injuries will be if the bomb exploded in Tadevosyan’s hands. And the expert answered that in this case the bomb will cut off Tadevosyan’s hand. Nikoyan asked the reason why the bulletproof vest of Tadevosyan was not examined. The Commission Chairman, Samvel Nikoyan, wondered why Tadevosyan’s bullet-proof jacket hadn’t been examined. Vahagn Harutyunyan’s reply was rather impressive. It is too bad that bullet-proof vest wasn’t sent to an examination," said Vahagn Harutyunyan smiling. He added that Tadevosyan’s jacket will soon be examined. To the question why the bulletproof jacket hadn’t yet been examined Harutyunyan grinned, “It wasn’t examined and it was good it wasn’t examined.” Nevertheless, yesterday the deputy head of the criminal examination department of the RA Police Expertise Bureau Artur Hovhannisyan said that the cause of Tadevosyan’s death was the grenade, which exploded in the distance of 1-1.5 meters from Tadevosyan. He claimed that if the grenade exploded in his hand as some media sources say his arm would at least be cut.