A court hearing was held at the “Ajapnyak 1” seat of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction’s Criminal Division, presided over by Judge Roman Smbatyan, in the case of Ernest Yenoqyan who is charged with murder.
According to the indictment, on August 20, 2023, around 4:30 PM, Ernest Yenoqyan unlawfully took the life of Adrianna Garnik Lima, after which he damaged an apartment owned by Arthur Rafik Sargsyan by means of arson, causing property damage of 3,466,000 AMD, which constitutes a large amount.
It is noted that on August 20, 2023, around 4:15 PM, Ernest Yenoqyan visited apartment #59 in building 1 on Yeznik Koghbatsi Street in Yerevan, which was rented by Adrianna Lima and owned by Arthur Sargsyan, with the purpose of demanding back 400,000 drams that he had previously lent to Adrianna Lima. During the conversation about the money, Adrianna Lima told Ernest Yenoqyan that she only owed him 100,000 AMD.
Regarding the money issue, Ernest Yenoqyan directed sexual obscenities at Adrianna Lima, who, taking offense and grabbing a knife from the apartment, tried to force Ernest Yenoqyan out of the apartment at knifepoint.
Seeing this, Ernest Yenoqyan took the knife from Adrianna Lima’s hand and, with the intention of unlawfully taking her life, inflicted multiple stab wounds on her. As a result of the injuries sustained, Adrianna Lima died at the scene.
Ernest Yenoqyan then used his lighter to burn Adrianna Lima’s bedroom clothes, after which he locked the apartment door with a key and fled.
According to Iravaban.net, experts Vardges Frangyan, Vardan Frangyan, and Karen Nazaryan appeared at this court session.
Vardges Frangyan was questioned first. The presiding judge noted that the questioning would be conducted regarding the conclusion given by the experts, which was published during the court session, but the victim’s side had expressed certain disagreements about this conclusion, which is why the latter were invited to court.
Being an expert in the Fire Technical and Explosion Technical Examinations Department of the National Bureau of Expertise, Vardges Frangyan stated that he conducted a fire technical examination at the scene.
The victim’s side asked when he went to the apartment, to which the expert replied September 15, 2023, that is, 1 month after the incident. When asked what was happening there and what he saw, he responded that he saw an already burned apartment, with a chaotic situation in the balcony area: “The balcony was almost completely burned, in the living room the sofa was partially damaged, burned, in the bedroom almost everything was burned, some details were preserved in a partial, half-burned state. The kitchen was heat-affected but there were no traces characteristic of fire, there was no flame as such, but it was completely heat-affected. Open fire, which would have led to the burning of bloody mass, did not occur.”
He noted that there was also no open fire in the hallway and bathroom areas, again there was a high thermal effect. Traces characteristic of open fire were present in the closed balcony, which served as a bedroom, the adjacent window that separated the living room from the closed balcony, that window burned and subjected the living room adjacent area to thermal effects.
The victim’s side also inquired about the condition of the apartment’s movable property, to which the witness replied that the functionality of property not related to the fire’s origin was not checked.
“Could they have been damaged, heat-affected?”
“Maybe, I can’t say, but as a fire technical expert, I can say that the latter were not the cause, meaning the property was not the cause of the fire’s origin.”
Regarding the presence of gasoline at the scene, the expert said that no traces characteristic of petroleum products and flammable liquids were found in the samples taken.
“I can prove that they burned the house with gasoline, because I took all his clothes from that room, everything smelled of gasoline, I can bring those gasoline-soaked clothes, which I took and buried under his feet, everything smells of gasoline, I can dig them up and bring them,” said the victim’s mother.
Regarding this statement, the expert stated that while it cannot be definitively claimed that it wasn’t present during the fire, it’s not ruled out, but in what was presented to the expert and what the expert took from the scene and examined, no such thing was found in those samples.
Next, Vardan Frangyan, an expert from the Construction Technical Examinations Department, was questioned.
The victim asked what aspect the conclusion covered, to which the expert said it was given regarding forensic construction technical examinations, he didn’t evaluate but provided volumes that were presented in the corresponding conclusion.
He stated that the apartment was almost completely burned, covered in soot: “As of that day, the tiles were subject to cleaning, no damaged tiles were found, and as for whether they could have been damaged due to high thermal effects or not, I want to inform you that if there was high temperature, did you see the apartment during that period, did you see that the plastic suspended ceiling, which hadn’t burned but only subjected to thermal effects, meaning there wasn’t such high thermal effect that would damage the tiles.”
According to the expert, an investigation was conducted regarding the tiles in the apartment, but no damage was caused by the fire: “In the balcony area, the plaster was already fallen off, complete plastering and painting was prescribed, secondly, if you touch it, it’s empty underneath, it wasn’t caused by the fire, meaning the separation of plaster from the walls is a different issue.”
To the presiding judge’s question about the condition of the apartment’s outlets, the expert said they were damaged, covered in soot, but not burned, photos are available. He said that the victim’s side had presented incorrect data in the list of property burned as a result of the fire, which has caused such contradictions.
The victim, the apartment owner, disagreed with the expert’s claims that the walls were not damaged or collapsed. The expert noted that window dismantling and new window installation was carried out in the apartment, after which finishing work was done throughout the room – plastering, stucco, alignment work, and also noted that they are not aware of any case of falling stones, there is nothing like that in the photographed pictures.
According to him, the issue of calculating the volume of damage caused by the fire was assessed: “The water from firefighting damages the lower apartments more than the upper part of the given apartment, and those areas that could have been damaged as a result, in this case – the floor, which has also been completely changed, I have prescribed complete replacement work.”
The other witness called to court stated that he works in the Commodity Science Department of the National Bureau of Expertise as an expert.
He stated that he visited the apartment on September 25, 2023.
“You noted – garbage 10 thousand drams, what price is this, can you detail what’s included in this, what floor was the apartment on?”
“To be honest, I don’t remember that because it’s not a commodity science issue, and as for the construction waste price, those prices are taken according to all construction norms specified in the Ministry of Urban Development’s 2008 Decision N 49 of the Republic of Armenia.”
“So, transferring 1 ton of garbage from the 11th floor costs 10 thousand drams, and what exactly is included in that?” “Garbage transportation.”
The expert, in response to the victims’ questions, said that the prices for door and window dismantling and installation were also taken according to the decision’s norms, where each price is specified separately.
According to Iravaban.net, at the next court session in this case, the issue of the preventive measure applied to the accused will be discussed.
It should be noted that the victim’s representative filed a motion to summon witness Sahak Azizyan to court. He stated that the latter spent the night before the murder at the victim’s house and could provide certain information about calls made by Adrianna Lima that day.
The public prosecutor stated regarding the motion that the victim’s representative had not provided information about the motives of the crime, the presented motion is groundless and subject to rejection. He noted that no justifications were presented as to what factual circumstance is confirmed or refuted specifically by witness Sahak Azizyan’s testimony for rendering a verdict.
The murdered woman’s mother made a statement regarding the motion: “I want to call Sahak as a witness, he was my child’s closest friend, he knows everything, I have many questions to ask him, he’s avoiding me. He was in front of the building entrance at the very minute on the day of the incident when the house was burned, and on the night of the 19th, he stayed at my child’s house, and now neither my child’s phones nor money nor anything else is there.”
The court granted the motion, taking into account that certain data could become known through the witness’s questioning that would serve the interests of justice.
The victim’s representative also filed a motion to summon another witness, noting that the latter had close relations with Adrianna, could provide information about the installation of recording devices in the apartment, and was present when threats were made against Adrianna Lima.
The public prosecutor stated regarding the motion that it is subject to rejection, the presented factual data are abstract, the episodes of drug use and making threats are not relevant to this criminal proceeding as there is a separate proceeding.
Ernest Yenoqyan’s defender Sasun Rafaelyan also insisted that these circumstances are not relevant to his client, moreover, the victim admitted during questioning that Ernest Yenoqyan was the person about whom her son had not filed complaints, there had never been any dissatisfaction regarding him.
Taking into account the absence of substantiated arguments and hearing the positions of the parties, the court rejected the second motion.
The next court session in this case will take place on November 5.
Details in the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
