On 25 June, the hearing on the case of former Chief of Police Vladimir Gasparyan was continued in the Anti-Corruption Court. Judge Suren Khachatryan presided over the Court hearing.
In the indictment, it is stated that Gasparyan, being aware that Susanna Sardaryan (Gasparian), who is in a de facto marital relationship with him, did not report to the Ministry of Defense RO service and never performed the official duties arising from the position, he paid the latter’s salary. The state suffered a particularly large loss of 17 million 275 thousand 721 drams.
According to Iravaban.net, Knarik Sasunyan, Vachagan Babayan, Ashot Simonyan, Hrant Yepiskoposyan and Koryun Mkrtchyan appeared among the summoned witnesses. Witness Vahan Najaryan, whose summons was sent through the relevant police department, did not appear.
Singer Knarik Sasunyan was the first witness to be questioned. She mentioned that in 2011-2018 she worked at the Culture Center of the Police under Susanna Gasparyan’s leadership.
The witness said that within the scope of work, she worked as a leading specialist, various events were organized, video clips were shot, and they accepted delegations from different countries. All that was shown on television as well.
To the public prosecutor’s question, who was involved in organizing these events, the witness said: Susanna Gasparyan, and there was direct contact with the latter.
He also mentioned that there were discussions with the employees and Susanna Gasparyan; they discussed the process of filming videos, sewing clothes, and other cultural issues.
In response to the prosecutor’s question whether they had discussions with Susanna Gasparyan before the organized events or not, the witness said that they had discussions every day.
– How did you attend the work? Did you go to work every day? How many hours did you work? What days did you go to work?
– I mentioned that there were big events, and we attended even on Saturdays and Sundays, and stayed after 6 to do the work as well.
– That is you went to work every day, were there cases when you stayed to work after 6 o’clock?
– Yes! Ms. Gasparyan worked as much as we did as well.
– In other words, did Ms. Gasparyan work equally with you?
– Definitely. I remember that very well, even during the testimony that I was saying, I remember the investigator yelling at me and saying, “What have you come here for, and threading the needle with a red thread!? You say she worked, what did it work, I have fixed only that.”
– Did you mention the same circumstances that Mrs. Gasparyan worked on a daily basis in your testimony to the investigator?
– Yes! I was fevering, I remember very well. I have to mention that I did not read my testimony, but I signed it because I was unable to.
When asked whether she mentioned during testifying at the pre-investigation body that Susanna Gasparyan was the referent of the Chief of Police, the witness replied that she did not remember whether she was asked that question or not.
The Public Prosecutor asked if she remembers the discussions about the events. Sasunyan mentioned that, for example, when foreign delegations were supposed to come, they would start preparing for it a few days before, also during events and recording. When asked which foreign delegations were met, she said: Russia, Georgia, China and other countries.
The Prosecutor asked the witness to specify what functions they performed in particular.
Vladimir Gasparyan’s defense attorney Erik Aleksanyan objected to the question, stating that she had already answered those questions, what can the Prosecutor expect in more detail than that? “I cannot even imagine how it can be defined as another organizational action. During the organization of the concerts, maybe the Prosecutor wanted to make a clarification regarding the preparation of clothes.
The next question of the Public Prosecutor was as follows:
– You were interrogated by the investigator conducting the proceedings, is it possible that the investigator directed you? What data did you say, were those data recorded, or did he say: present this circumstance this way, and the other that way?
– I was asked questions, I answered them, he kept shouting at me. I repeat that I did not read my testimony because I had fever, but I signed and wrote at the bottom of my testimony.
– Do you remember who questioned you?
– Mejlumyan? Do I remember correctly?
– If he was shouting, what was the reason you signed, under those conditions?
– It is been a long time, I remember that exact moment very well, and after the testimony I signed because there was no other option.
– Have you been questioned about these issues in court or not?
– Yes, in this matter.
– Did you mention these same circumstances or not when you were interrogated?
– Definitely.
– During the previous interrogation, when you were interrogated in court, did you mention that the investigator shouted at you, you were forced to sign, and you left?
Erik Aleksanyan said that the circumstances of the questioning of a witness in another case are not related to this criminal proceeding at all, he asked to remove the question, and the judge said that it refers to the order of conducting the questioning. The question was not removed.
In response to the question, the witness stated that she had said in the court that she had fever, she did not read the testimony, she does not remember exactly what she said last time regarding the fact that the investigator shouted at her.
Erik Aleksanyan asked questions to the witness next. He asked if she had secretly recorded Mejlumyan shouting at her during the interrogation, the witness said ‘yes’. The defender mentioned that this evidence will be additionally presented to the court.
He inquired whether there were situations when Susanna Gasparyan was not at the Culture Center and certain organizational issues were also discussed outside the center, through the phone, the witness said that there were such cases, outside the Culture Center; the discussions took place remotely as well.
The Public Prosecutor interceded for the publication of the witness’s preliminary testimony, because, according to him, there are conflicting data, in particular, regarding the circumstances of Susanna Gasparyan’s showing up for work, working equally with employees, and performing specific work duties.
There were no objections, the preliminary testimony was published. The witness stated the following in her preliminary testimony:
“My husband dealt with issues related to the House of Culture of the Police, I wrote the programs and scripts of organized events and concerts, and presented them to my husband.
I knew Vladimir Gasparyan as a Chief of Police, I saw him when he visited the Culture Center of the Police, I had no relationship with him personally. I met Vladimir Gasparyan’s daughter, Angelina Gasparyan, she sometimes visited the Culture Center, performed at concerts, I also knew Susanna Gasparyan, the wife of the Chief of Police, who also sometimes visited the House of Culture of the Police, was present at organized events and concerts.
During the period when I worked at the House of Culture of the Police, Vladimir Gasparyan’s wife did not work there; I do not know where she worked.”
When asked if she was involved in the work of the House of Culture of the Police in any way, the witness answered that her husband was involved in the organization of the center’s work, Susanna Gasparyan was present at the concerts and events organized by the Culture Center, she was present at the recording of videos dedicated to the police, there were cases when the latter visited the Culture Center before various events or concerts, got acquainted with the scenarios, the program, and provided advice.
During the pre-trial testimony, she also said that she did not know what the direction of Susanna Gasparyan’s work was, but she was present at the events and provided directions on various issues.
The witness claimed that she had said the same the pre-examination body, she does not remember the referee’s name, but she mentioned that Susanna Gasparyan worked with him.
Vladimir Gasparyan’s defense attorney Erik Aleksanyan published a recording of the testimony of the witness in the pre-trial body.
The Prosecutor said the following about the recording: “It is not known under what circumstances the recording was made, because it is not complete, and second, it was visible from that recording that the investigator was asking questions, saying: provide the details, now in the same way, the witness in the court was saying general things when answering the questions. We also say: make it clear, if the video recording was complete, we would have a better idea.”
Erik Aleksanyan said in response to the Public Prosecutor: “From the point of view of interrogation tactics, it is difficult for me to imagine whether the investigator has the right to make such statements, he is the official person who receives answers through this or that investigative action and especially through interrogation through direct and cross questions. Whether the answers are satisfactory or not satisfactory for the investigator, this in no way allows the body conducting the proceedings to make such expressions and statements regarding this or that answer, in particular: “threading a red thread”, “how many times have you seen Mrs. Gasparyan?”What are you talking about?”
According to him, there can be no question about the editing of the recording, the voices of both the witness and the investigator are definitely clear. The defense attorney mentioned that the recording will be presented to the court so that the court can evaluate it from the point of view of credibility.
The questioning of the witness was over.
After publishing the recording and listening the position of the Prosecutor, Vladimir Gasparyan made the following statement in court: “My dear boy, I will not excuse you, I will be very strict, I will put everything on the table and pursue you till the end.”
The next witness, Koryun Mkrtchyan, was questioned. He said that he knew only Vladimir Gasparyan from the trial participants. He worked at the Culture Center as an artistic director.
There he performed the duties of director and art director, participated in the organization of events.
To the Public Prosecutor’s question about whom he worked with and what functions he performed, the witness said that he had no contact with anyone except Armen Gevorgyan. He recognized Susanna Gasparyan, the latter used to come and participate in the preparations for the events. He mentioned that he always saw while evaluating the events, and he presented the works he had done to Armen Gevorgyan.
In response to Erik Aleksanyan’s question, what Susanna Gasparyan’s directions were related with, the witness said: scenery, script, choice of actors, etc. He was not interested in whom and where worked, he did his job, and Armen Gevorgyan informed about the final assessment.
The questioning of witness Koryun Mkrtchyan ended.
Vachagan Babayan was questioned next. He said that he knew Vladimir Gasparyan; he was in very good relations with the latter.
He knew Susanna Gasparyan since the 2000s, but he did not know what position she held.
“I was the number one responsible for the operation of the Military Police, I followed the cleanliness. In case of guests I was told to be careful. I have seen the guests, delegations accompanied by employees of the General Staff or the Ministry of Defense.
I have not even thought to be interested in what position she holds. In 2012, I was transferred to the police, there I was also the one responsible for operation, there were approximately 350 offices, I was in the Culture Center almost every day, I saw Mrs. Susanna there,” the witness said.
Regarding Susanna Gasparyan’s work and other circumstances, the Public Prosecutor said that during the preliminary investigation, the witness clearly stated that he saw Susanna Gasparyan working at two workplaces only when visiting the Chief of Police. “The witness did not disclose any information about meeting Ms. Gasparyan under any duty or under any other circumstances, and he stated in the court in detail under what circumstances he saw her, she met him many times while organizing events, which, in my opinion, is a significant contradiction, and in order to assess the credibility of the witness’s testimony I think it is necessary to publish that testimony.”
Erik Aleksanyan said that it is not a contradiction. “Perhaps that question was not asked to the witness during the preliminary investigation, the witness stated that he saw Susanna Gasparyan while visiting Mr. Gasparyan, but at the same time the witness did not mention that he did not see Mrs. Susanna Gasparyan while participating in the organization of events, which he reported to the court a little while ago.”
The court decided to satisfy the petition of the Public Prosecutor, to publish the preliminary testimony of the witness.
The witness confirmed the given testimony, said that they are true; and he said that he had seen Susanna Gasparyan at various events.
Due to the busy schedule of the court, the other 2 witnesses summoned will be questioned at the next court session.
