A hearing on the case of Poghos Poghosyan, who was killed on September 25, 2001, took place on July 28 in Yerevan Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Karen Farkhoyan.
According to Iravaban.net, during this hearing, the prosecutor motioned to once again interrogate Steven Newton, a witness in Poghos Poghosyan’s murder case.
As a reminder, the case of the 43-year-old Poghosyan’s death was reopened in 2019 following a complaint by Steven Newton, a citizen of Great Britain who witnessed the incident. The only defendant in the case is Aghamal Harutyunyan, nicknamed “Kuku,” a former member of second President Robert Kocharyan’s security detail, charged with negligent homicide. The incident took place at the “Aragast” café.
According to prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan, the testimony given during the preliminary investigation, the data provided by the witness through the consular service in a letter, as well as the factual information in an interview given to one media outlet do not correspond to previously provided information.
He noted that questions remain unanswered regarding the defendant’s whereabouts, his actions, the transfer of the victim to the café’s restroom, whether the defendant or other individuals were seen with a pistol at that time, and other details.
Aghamal Harutyunyan’s advocate, Robert Bejanyan, stated that the witness’s first testimony should be considered as the basis: “Newton gave direct testimony from the very beginning, before being asked questions, about what he had seen and remembered. That is, when he entered the ‘toilet,’ he saw Nalbandyan and ‘Kuku’ on his left, and directly in front of him, he saw Poghos Poghosyan lying down, with his head toward the toilet bowl and his feet toward the exit. Then, through questions about how people appeared and what actions were taken, that confusion created a contradiction.”
The court satisfied the presented motion.
The prosecutor also presented a motion to conduct a repeated examination: “I motion to appoint a repeated forensic medical examination during this trial and to task the experts with a series of questions related to the baseline data, the injury, the mechanisms of injury, and the causal link with the death.
Before appointing the examination, I ask the court to satisfy one more motion related to the exhumation investigative and procedural action. I believe it is necessary to obtain the consent of Poghos Poghosyan’s close relatives for this action and to carry it out.”
The prosecutor stated that as a result, they could get a completely different picture, as the witness’s letter-application mentioned blows delivered with the use of a pistol.
Regarding the motion, the defense stated: “24 years have passed, and I believe the exhumation cannot provide anything because it can only discover a new injury, which cannot have any connection with the death, especially since at this moment there is an expert conclusion that his death was caused by a skull fracture.”
In response to the defense’s statement, the prosecutor noted that there was no skull fracture; his suspicions lead him to believe that there should have been a fracture, but it was not detected, which is why he is presenting such a motion.
The court did not make a decision regarding the last motion; the presiding judge stated that they still need to obtain the consent of Poghosyan’s relatives.
The victim’s representative also motioned to invite expert Shavarsh Gevorgyan to court, but both the prosecution and the court emphasized that after obtaining the baseline data, a new need would arise to summon him again.
The next hearing in the case was scheduled for August 15.
