The regular sitting on the case of the murder of waitress Mariam Hunanyan was passing in a hot atmosphere.
The court was examining the protocols and expertise made during the preliminary investigation. After almost all the protocols the defendant’s side made a statement that they had been implemented violating the norms of criminal court proceedings.
During the court session the results of forensic medical examination of Mariam Hunanyan’s body were announced. The mother of the victim was not able to participate in the session. First the prosecutor asked the court to allow her not to participate in the session but the woman did not go out. Later she had to leave the sitting hall with tears in her eyes.
Everything began with the examination of the video from the crime scene. They watched a video where the accused David Tamrazyan was telling how he had killed the victim, Mariam Hunanyan.
After the examination of this video the defender of the accused, Kromvel Grigoryan, argued that later he would present a petition for acknowledging this evidence as inadmissible. “The duration of the video we have watched at the court is about three minutes, while the investigation process lasted for an hour and 45 minutes: the term is not preserved,”- mentioned the lawyer, but the prosecutor argued that there is no statement in the protocol which requires to shoot from the beginning to the end.
The prosecutor resumed reading the protocols. The defender was interrupting him, asking to read clearly and not to miss out the lines. After the protocols he was announcing that he was going to present a petition to recognize them as inadmissible evidence.
For example, speaking about the protocol of recognizing the crime tool, knife, by David Tamrazyan, the defender mentioned: “Knives were found during the search, but there is no hint which one of them is spoken about in the protocol: there are no external characteristics and a recorded note about the concrete place it was put. It is only mentioned that the confiscated knife was put under the number four. How can we know whether the investigator had counted starting from the left or the right? So it is impossible to conclude that David Tamrazyan recognized the knife confiscated from his house.”
An argument began between the prosecutor and the defender while reading the name of an assistant in one of the protocols. Cromvel Grigoryan asked the prosecutor to read the surname clearly which irritated the latter. The judge urged the defender not to speak from his place, and the defender made a statement, saying “I asked to read the surname clearly, and I think that the same fact also slipped the attention of the presiding judge as the surname of one of the assistants is mentioned as Dilanyan in one protocol, and Ghilkanyan in another, while it is the same person. The defendant’s side will also present a petition so that the court recognizes this evidence as inadmissible.”
Besides, he also noticed that the prosecutor was missing out some lines. “Respected prosecutor, you are missing out some lines,”-he reproved. Judge Tatevik Grigoryan did not approve this and banned the defender to speak, offering to make notes and announce his objections when the prosecutor finished.
G.T.
