The trial of former Chief of Police Vladimir Gasparyan, his former Deputy Levon Yeranosyan, Head of the Police Internal Audit Department Vardan Tunyan and Commander of the Military Unit of Police Forces Gurgen Grigoryan continued in the Anti-Corruption Court on 19 June, under the Preciding Judge Vardges Sargsyan.
According to Iravaban.net, 4 witnesses interrogated in the case were questioned during the session. Gurgen Grigoryan’s lawyer did not appear at the court session, but the latter stated that he does not see a problem in continuing the session without the presence of a lawyer.
The interrogation of witness Arman Avetisyan
The first to be interrogated in the court was the current Deputy Head of the Personnel Department of the Police Forces, formerly the Head, Colonel Arman Avetisyan.
According to the indictment, in 2015, Vladimir Gasparyan appointed his daughter, Yulia Gasparyan, to the position of senior officer of the operational department of the headquarters of the police forces, but the latter did not show up for duty at all. Levon Yeranosyan was well aware that if she remained in the position of senior officer of the operational department of the headquarters of the police forces, he could not award Yulia Gasparyan the military rank of lieutenant colonel and in 2018 he instructed to organize the process of appointing Yulia Gasparyan to a higher position.
He mentioned that a lot of time has passed since the incident, he doesn’t remember much. He asked the participants of the trial to ask him questions. According to Arman Avetisyan, Yuilia Gasparyan held the position of senior officer of the operative department, and then was appointed to the position of head of the personnel department, so that she could be given the rank of lieutenant colonel. Then, 2 days later, the daughter of the Chief of Police was returned to her former position.
He mentioned that he never met Yulia Gasparyan at work, did not know her, the latter did not sign documents in his presence. “It was not within my competence to check whether she appears or not appears, and there was an order to carry out the process, I could not ask questions.”
Arman Avetisyan could not answer other questions, because, according to him, he did not remember, a lot of time had passed. The witness only mentioned that he received the instructions regarding Yulia Gasparyan’s appointments from Levon Yeranosyan. “No other person, ex-officio, could have given me such an instruction.”
Then public prosecutor Tigran Yenokyan asked him questions about Vahram Ghazaryan.
According to the case materials, defendant Vardan Tunyan asked Levon Yeranosyan to accept his acquaintance Vahram Ghazaryan for service in the police forces. The mentioned person was hired, but did not show up for duty. Instead, he performed the duties of Tunyan’s driver.
Arman Avetisyan did not remember much about this incident either. He only mentioned that Ghazaryan, as he remembered, was transferred from the Ministry of Defense to the police. The presiding judge inquired from the witness whether it is possible that the latter has health problems that he does not remember details about the incident. Arman Avetisyan gave a negative answer, justifying himself. “7-8 similar processes are carried out daily in the HR department.”
Judge Vardges Sargsyan asked to mention one case during the years 2013-2020, when any employee except Yulia Gasparyan did not show up for service, and was promoted without showing up, with similar terms and forms. According to Avestisyan, there was no such incident. Gagik Khachikyan, the defense attorney of Vardan Tunyan, petitioned to publish the preliminary testimony of the witness, the court granted the petition.
In the pre-trial testimony, Arman Avetisyan stated that in order to appoint Yulia Gasparyan to the position of the head of the personnel department, he dismissed Tatos Hambaryan from the same position earlier, and warned the latter that his dismissal was temporary. Hambaryan agreed. Levon Yeranosyan instructed him to award the title to the Chief of Police ‘s daughter, urging him to “do it and not be interested”. “Since, from the name of that person, it was already clear who she was, I did not ask unnecessary questions about her.”
After receiving the appointment order of Yulia Gasparyan, the witness organized the exchange process of Gasparyan and Hambaryan. In his preliminary testimony, Avetisyan admitted that the process was of a formal nature, that he included untrue statements and information in the documents.
“In the qualification documents of Yulia Gasparyan, it was mentioned that the latter showed herself as a knowing, conscientious and disciplined military servant. She fulfills official duty in a proper manner, does not avoid difficulties, is constantly engaged in the direction of increasing her professional knowledge, actively participates in the work performed in the operational department. With the same documents, Yulia Gasparyan was guaranteed to be appointed to a high position,” this was stated in the pre-trial testimony.
However, Arman Avetisyan stated that everything in the pre-examination testimony he gave was written correctly, he read it himself and signed it.
The interrogation of witness Rafael Zakaryan
The second was the former Head of the General Department on Combating Organized Crime, Rafael Zakaryan, who testified.
According to the case materials, Vladimir Gasparyan, while occupying the position Chief of Police, purchased and sold an apartment on Griboyedov street for 15 million drams, which he allocated to Rafik Zakaryan, who did not need an apartment.
He stated in court that the 1-room apartment was given to him as an incentive for his long service. He mentioned that he knows about the Government’s decision to allocate apartments to police officers, but it refers to the needy. “I was not in the register of the needy; I received the apartment as an incentive. As an incentive for my 40 years of work.”
According to Rafael Zakaryan, there were only working relations between him and Vladimir Gasparyan. Gasparyan’s defense attorney Erik Aleksanyan, while asking the question to the witness, stated that the accusation is that the Chief of Police provided Zakaryan the given apartment based on his personal interest “to do a favor”.
Rafael Zakaryan ruled this out, stating that he learned about the apartment allocation from the officer of the given police department, and if it was a “favor” he would have learned about it from the Chief of Police. “I was surprised, I didn’t know.”
Then Erik Aleksanyan made a statement in the court and stated that allegedly not complying with the requirements of the Government’s decision does not imply any personal or other interest from him, therefore it is pointless to talk about a legal accusation. The other defender of the former Chief of Police, Alexander Kochubaev, also made a statement in court. He mentioned that during Vladimir Gasparyan’s tenure (2011-2018), more than 100 civil servants were awarded in the system based on the same Government decision, but only 3 of them were selected in the case.
“The beginning of this criminal case was the Chief of Police Valery Osipyan’s report that 3 officers were allocated illegal apartments. Moreover, Valery Osipyan was awarded with this same order, he received an apartment. Blaming this accusation on Vladimir Gasparyan solved other problems, otherwise, if everything is honest and fair, we should have had a criminal case with an episode exceeding 100, because all the servants were rewarded with the same order,” Kochubaev noted.
Questioning of witness Karen Baghdasaryan
Colonel Karen Baghdasaryan, Head of the Property Accounting Department of the Economic Department of the Police, was the 3rd to be interrogated. He told the court that the function of their department was to include the apartments in the police balance sheet and donate them to needy police officers. The necessary documents were received by the legal department and the financial and budgetary department. Karen Baghdasaryan knew Rafael Zakaryan, because the latter was once his superior.
Public prosecutor Tigran Yenokyan mentioned that no documents were found in the finance and budget department regarding the allocation of apartments to Garegin Gasparyan and Rafael Zakaryan.
“I can’t say, it’s impossible that they are not there. Usually, those transfers and allocations are made by the financial and budgetary department. Housing cases were drawn up; investigators came and took those documents from our legal service. I can’t say exactly what,” he said in the court.
According to the decision of the presiding judge, the pre-trial testimony of Karen Baghdasaryan was also published, in which the witness spoke about the well-known decision of the Government, but could not answer the questions about it in court. In addition, there were significant contradictions in the testimony of the witness, which the presiding judge also pointed out. The witness stated that he could not remember the Government’s decision by heart; the investigator read parts that were combined in the testimony.
“Anyone in RA, including our honorable members of the Government, cannot remember the decision of the Government of that extent, there is no responsibility on anyone. None of you are asking that you remember. Now, if you open 100 of the Government’s decisions in front of me, I am not familiar with that order. If the investigator interrogates me, if he uses violence against me, if he wants to beat the presiding judge, I cannot testify about those circumstances. You are a police colonel. I have an impression that I am interrogating conscripts here. Based on your testimony, I will decide Vladimir Gasparyan’s fate, no matter how loud it sounds. Based on your testimony, I will decide the fate of Levon Yeranosyan, Gurgen Grigoryan, Vardan Tunyan. Take this issue a little seriously,” Vardges Sargsyan said, urging a witness to report if the investigator forced him to quote parts of the Government’s decision.
The witness claimed that the investigator opened the Government’s decision and read it himself. “I remember that there were cases in the legal department that should be with the honorable investigator.”
The judge asked Karen Baghdasaryan why he stated in his pre-trial testimony that there were no documents regarding the allocation of apartments to 3 employees, but there should have been. “They were not at the investigator, nor have they been sent to the court.”
The witness mentioned that he did not deal with Rafael Zakaryan’s and Garegin Gasparyan’s issues.
Vardges Sargsyan mentioned that the witness could not explain the existing contradictions in any way and he considers it pointless to continue the interrogation. “At least for me, the police colonel’s answers are incomprehensible, that he cannot justify his testimony. From the answers you gave, I could not understand which of the testimonies you gave is credible and, in general, whether your testimonies are credible or not.
The interrogation of witness Garegin Gasparyan
Garegin Gasparyan, the former First Deputy Head of the General Department of Public Safety Protection, was interrogated the 4th. After he approached the podium, the judge announced that he has a good memory and it is not the first time that the latter has participated in court sessions. “You came to this courtroom.”
The witness confirmed that he had come, but he was not informed that he should not have participated in the session.
“Considering that the process is broadcast live by media representatives, we are guided by the assumption that Gasparyan could also watch these video recordings at home and listen to the interrogation of the witnesses,” the judge noted.
Garegin Gasparyan stated that he got the apartment on the basis of being in need. At that time he had 3, and now 4 minor children. He has been in the police system since 2011 and has held various positions. “At the urging of my fellow soldiers, I reported to the chiefs that I live in the village, in my father’s house. I need an apartment, I am a participant in the war, I have nothing, and I have a problem going to and from Yerevan.”
After some time, the latter was informed that the police will provide him with an apartment as an incentive. The public prosecutor mentioned that the latter had a share about 1 year before getting an apartment, but refused it. Garegin Gasparyan stated that the apartment originally belonged to his mother and aunt; he does not know how they were registered in the ownership certificate and refused it.
“I don’t know how my name appeared there during the privatization. I left that house in 1992 and haven’t been home for years. My father also said, “You are 5 children, uncle and aunt got the house.” Your mother has to decide who to give it to. My father and I went, we made a donation to my mother,” Gasparyan said.
Tigran Yenokyan said that according to the decision of the Government, which has already been mentioned many times, a person must not own any property or have a share for 5 years, in order for the latter, according to the order, to be provided with an apartment. However, about 1 year after giving up the share of his father’s house, Gasparyan was allocated an apartment.
The public prosecutor revealed another interesting circumstance. The apartment received by the police is not registered in the name of Garegin Gasparyan, but in the name of his childhood friend, Marat Avetisyan. The witness said that in 2018 he was fired from his job, had accumulated debts, and his friend, who now lives in Russia, supported him.
“He came from Russia, he wanted to buy a house. I was in such a state of mind that I wanted to sell the house to pay off his debts. I was fired, I had a big family, I was in a desperate situation. He himself saw my state of mind, that I want to sell the house, he said, “I don’t need the debt, give me that house,” the witness said, adding that his friend allowed him to live in that house.
The public prosecutor asked if he and Vladimir Gasparyan were friends. The witness mentioned that they are from Syunik, their grandfathers lived in the same settlement, but they are not close relatives. “Perhaps, the correct answer will be given by the genetic examination.”
To Erik Aleksanyan’s question, whether he artificially worsened his condition in order to get an apartment from the state, the witness gave a negative answer.
The judge inquired whether Garegin Gasparyan is interested in the fate of the former Chief of Police, the court verdict, or whether it is the same for him.
The witness mentioned that if Vladimir Gasparyan is being accused for providing him with an apartment, the matter concerns him. “Gasparian has always been a pro-state man and always highly valued the militarymen. He himself did a humanely good deed, the law allowed him to do it.”
Tigran Yenokyan told the court that the witness did not reveal any information about Marat Avetisyan in the preliminary testimony; he stated that it was his personal life. “I find that this circumstance is essential.”
Regarding the issue, Garegin Gasparyan mentioned that he did not report it to the investigator; he is now reporting it to the court.
The session was postponed, one of the witnesses, Israel Safaryan, will be interrogated at the next session.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
