On 16 July at the Court of General Jurisdiction of Shirak Marz the court session of the case of the accident between “Kamaz” and “Gazel” vehicles. During the previous case it was decided to detain witnesses Arman Danielyan, Asatur Asatryan and Samvel Hakobyan. The court session began with the report that they have changed their place of residence and it is impossible to find them.
The claimant Anahit Khalatyan, executive director of “Trance Akntart” CJSC, was the first to be examined. She told that the results of the technical examination of the vehicles and the diagnosis of the drivers’ medical examination are given to her, after what she gives permission to ride. She also told that the technical examination of the vehicles is carried out at “Lilya Group” CJSC, and the last examination this “Gazel” was done in October or November of 2014. Defender L. Balyan claimed that according to the examinations present in the case “Gazel” microbus had a number of serious problems and further on L. Balyan is going to present a mediation on defective examination.
Then the testimonies of the witnesses Arman Danielyan, Samvel Hakobyan and Asatur Asatryan, given during the preliminary investigation, were declared. Witness Samvel Hakobyan, who is a minor and one of the passengers of the microbus, has mentioned names, surnames and sit-places of all the passengers, and from professional point of view correctly told about the incident and violations.
Then the accused Manvel Vardanyan was examined, who told about the incident in a detailed way. Answering the questions of the prosecutor, he told: “Kamaz has length of 7.20 meters, and if I decided to turn to the right, instead of going straight, I would have completely closed the road and it would have taken much time. What concerns the speed of “Gazel”, to my mind it had speed of approximately 100 km per hour, I cannot say for sure and I do not understand why the driver of “Gazel” turned to the left instead of a stop”.
The prosecutor asked about the contradictions with his previous testimony, and M. Vardanyan explained it in such a way, that he gave testimonies by investigator’s dictation and gave evasive answers to many questions. At first he thought that the investigator was his defender, and not the investigator himself. Anyway, he had told everything he knew, and confirmed his testimony given before. Then the accused said that he believes himself to be partly guilty.
