The court sessions of the gang case have been postponed for three times already. The reasons are different. And during the last court hearing the defendants and their defenders boycotted leaving the courtroom. The thing is that about three months ago Karen Vardanyan reported in his testimony that he had committed theft from “the change of 3rd Mas” with someone named “Jung”, and the defendants in this case Hayk and Rafael (according to the charge he has created and headed the gang in order to attack the exchange offices), have no connection.
The defendants Karen, Hayk and Rafael and the defenders are irritated by the fact that after this important testimony the appropriate steps haven’t been taken by the prosecutor so far. And during one of the previous trials Karen’s defender Tamara Baghdasaryan said that they had figured out Jung’s identity and would mediate to the court for him to be subpoenaed and questioned.
In the interview with Iravaban.net, Liparit Simonyan, the defender of Rafael, considered the leader of the gang, said that Rafael initially did not accept the charges filed against him in relation to that case and he has nothing to do with the case, he has been involved in the case as he knows Karen, as well as Tigran (he has been charged for the embezzlement of a significant amount of money from “Armbusinessbank”).
L. Simonyan also told that during the preliminary investigation of the theft case committed from the exchange office and killing the clerk, another young man had been placed in detention for a few months, but his case was dismissed after the appearance of “other actors”. “When we look through the preliminary testimonies of that time, there is an impression that they have been taken, evidence has been created in order to accuse of a specific person. There were people testifying that had known him.”
And after the appearance of Karen, Hayk and Rafael the process of the preliminary investigation has changed. Accusatory evidence has been started to be found out on the three of them.
Liparit Simonyan noted that neither he, nor his client have no intention to delay the investigation, on the contrary, they are interested in the fact that a fair trial be performed and the evidence be studied properly.