On 22 February, the examination of the petition submitted regarding the release on parole of the convict Mher Yenokyan continued at the “Avan” seat of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction.
In 1996, at the age of 20, Mher Yenokyan was sentenced to death for the murder of fellow student Iosif Aghajanov (Clause 1 and 6 of Article 99 of the Former Criminal Code). According to the Presidential Decree of 2003, the death sentence of 41 people replaced by life imprisonment; Mher Yenokyan was among them.
Iravaban.net reports that at the beginning of the court session, the party submitted a motion of challenge to Presiding Judge Masis Melkonyan and Prosecutor Arayik Brutyan.
Mher Yenokyan’s lawyer Zaruhi Mejlumyan noted that the judge is not impartial. She came to such opinion after the January 30 session, which, according to Mejlumyan, turned into a double conviction of a person in the case of 1996. “The court should not only be, but also appear to be impartial and unbiased. However, having not yet heard the party about whom a petition for parole has been submitted with two positive reports, the court has already expressed its point of view and position.”
The lawyer noted that the bias of the court was shown in the following circumstances. Masis Melkonyan insisted at the first session on 28 December that the participation of the victim’s side is mandatory, whereas the Penitentiary Code stipulates that the victim can participate in the session, and the non-appearance of a properly notified but non-appearing victim does not constrain the court to examine and make a decision. In addition, at the session on 30 January, the court rejected the party’s objection, allowing a person who is not the successor or representative of the victim to express a position.
“In addition, at the session on 30 January, the court applied terms not defined by any law regulating the field, and Mher Yenokyan’s resocialization was conditioned not by written provisions, but by the circumstance of “repentance”. The court responded to the position of the prosecutor in the following way: “we talk a lot about regretting about the committed act, apologizing, which has a very important role in legal, ordinary, and spiritual life, isn’t that a component element of resocialization?” Well, how is it that the reporting body did not consider it, did not consider it. How is that issue settled?”
During the trial, the court clearly approves and agrees with the positions of the representative of the victim’s successor and the prosecutor, which are not justified by any law,” Zaruhi Mejlumyan said.
In addition, the lawyer drew attention to the fact that the prosecutor and the lawyer of the victim’s successor, Margar Soghomonyan, worked together about 4 years ago. According to her, prosecutor Arayik Brutyan acts as the accuser and represents the illegal position of the victim’s successor regarding never releasing Mher Yenokyan on parole.
“The prosecutor contradicting tp the many facts and existing realities in the reports and the personal case of Mher Yenokyan, the relevant legal norms, expressing disagreement with the existing laws and by-laws, criticized the activities of two state bodies, the Penitentiary Service and the Probation Service, and the positive reports presented. The prosecutor places a burden of duty not defined by any law on Mher Yenokyan, to necessarily accept the act attributed to 1996 and to have relations with the successor of the victim,” Zaruhi Mejlumyan noted.
The lawyer of the victim’s successor, Margar Soghomonyan, and the prosecutor, Arayik Brutyan, noted that the submitted petition is groundless and subject to rejection.
According to Soghomonyan, Iosif Aghajanov’s father (successor of the victim) shall not appear in the court, because the doctors have forbidden him to be in stressful situations. “And this trial is stressful for him.”
Besides, according to the lawyer, it does not matter who is sitting in the court. Iosif Aghajanov’s father or sister? There are no contradictions between their positions. “They are trying to put pressure on the court through mediation; there is no objective basis for it.”
Referring to the relationship between the prosecutor and himself, Margar Soghomonyan noted that the latter worked together 4
years ago, but this cannot be a basis for an objection.
“I will consider this motion as another opportunity for the convicted person and Zaruhi Mejlumyan to express their positive characteristics. Most of the motion was about positive characteristics. If there is positive behavior, it still does not mean that the court and the prosecutor’s office should be in favor of paroleing the person. It is as a result of these characteristics that today Mher Yenokyan is in a low level of isolation, the punishment regime has changed from semi-open to open,” Margar Soghomyan noted.
The prosecutor in his turn, said that in his opinion, the presence of the victim’s successor in the court is mandatory if they express such a wish. “I do not think that anything related to the person should change.”
According to Araik Brutyan, he did not insist that the convict should admit his guilt. He only stated that the convict expresses remorse for an act which, according to Mher Yenokyan, he did not commit.
“The convict tried to negotiate with the successor of the victim only once through a lawyer, the offer was not accepted. It was considered that “I did everything to make the negotiations take place”. When discussing the issue of early parole, the court is also obliged to assess the fact that social justice has been restored,” Brutyan noted.
The prosecutor also said that working with Margar Soghomonyan for about 4 years does not constrain him to express his position.
The Presiding Judge, Masis Melkonyan, decided to reject the presented petition on the reason that it was groundless.
Then Zaruhi Mejlumyan continued presenting her position regarding Mher Yenokyan’s parole. She presented both the positive characteristics that were presented about the convict, as well as the guarantee of 10 intellectuals, among whom was Vardan Petrosyan. Mher Yenokyan’s wife Zaruhi Mejlumyan, stated in the court that both she and Yenokyan expressed their deep regret and sorrow regarding the tragedy that happened in 1996.
“Every time I am ready to say it and so Mher Yenokyan does. Dear Mrs. Aghajanova, dear Mikhail Aghajanov, we are sorry, we regret, and I apologize too. I was not present in 1996. These are not just words. Accept these words coming from my heart. Apart from the fact that I have presented myself here as a lawyer, my only desire is to have a dialogue with you, to hug you. I express deep regret and am ready for a dialogue if there is such an opportunity,” Zaruhi Mejlumyan said. Then, turning to the court, she noted that the family of the victim has no desire to have a dialogue.
Mher Yenokyan told the court that he tried to meet the objectives of the punishment; “to be resocialized” while suffering hardships for 28 years. He noted that regardless of whether he is released on parole or not, he will continue to apologize to the Aghajanov family even when he is free.
“I apologize to Mr. Mikhail Aghajanov, my former lecturer. I apologize to all members of your family and I am always ready to apologize. I have my sin, I repent. I regret not only that Iosif, my classmate, is gone…I also regret for my actions in causation, I regret my inaction. That pain and suffering is the pain of me, my wife, my parents, my whole family,” Yenokyan said.
The convict asked what he should do, what he has not done in 28 years, what he should do in the next 6 months. “I am a Christian, a follower of the Armenian Apostolic Church. When a person is forced to accept what he had not done, it contradicts moral norms as well.
Arayik Brutyan in his speech recalled that Mher Yenokyan escaped twice while serving his sentence. He also noted that during this period several life convicts were released on parole, but they admitted their actions and regretted them. “In addition, regarding to one of them, Manukyan Ashot, the successors of the victim submitted a notarized application to the court and stated that they are not against his release on parole.”
Margar Soghomonyan stated in the court that he understood from Zaruhi Mejlumyan’s words that the latter really regrets and apologizes, what happened is more painful for her than for Mher Yenokyan. “If a person does not accept the accusation and the act against him, there can be no talk of apologies. What is he apologizing for?”
After these words, Mher Yenokyan responded: “Now they are putting psychological pressure on me. You are using techniques; you want to take me to the field that is out of law.”
After a 1-hour break, the Court, presided by Masis Melkonyan, decided to reject the petition. Mher Yenokyan will not be released.
Zaruhi Mejlumyan stated that the decision will definitely be appealed.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
