The trial of former Police Chief Vladimir Gasparyan continued on November 13 at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Suren Khachatryan.

The indictment states that Gasparyan, knowing that Susanna Sardaryan (Gasparyan), who was in a de facto marital relationship with him, never reported for service at the Ministry of Defense Military Police or performed any official duties, continued to pay her salary. This caused particularly large-scale damage to the state amounting to 17,275,721 drams.

Witnesses Artak Harutyunyan, Tigran Ordukhanyan, and Karen Margaryan were summoned but did not appear at the court session.

Only one witness, Aghabek Grigoryan, appeared at the hearing.

Responding to Public Prosecutor Arsen Gevorgyan’s question about who he recognized and from where, Aghabek Grigoryan stated that he knew Vladimir Gasparyan, having worked under his supervision. Grigoryan worked at the Military Police from 1994-2021, serving as a company commander from 2004-2011, and later as an operational officer in the AWOL (Absent Without Leave) Department.

-Can you recall the names of other employees in your department during that period? -There were many of us, many came and went. If we worked in the same department, of course, I remember – Ashot, Garik, Tiko, Ano, Alina. -Among women, you mentioned Alina, Anahit. Did any other female employee work in your department during that period? -Not in our department, no. -Do you know someone by the name of Susanna Sardaryan? -Yes. -Can you tell us from where you know her? -From the institution, the directorate. Not from the department, but I know who you’re talking about from the directorate. -So you know her from your time working there? -Yes, of course. -What position did she hold? -I can’t say. I wasn’t involved in personnel matters at that time. We didn’t need to inquire about what position she held. -Did you have any information about Susanna Sardaryan’s and Vladimir Gasparyan’s relationship at that time? -No.

When asked by the prosecutor how many times Grigoryan had seen Susanna Sardaryan and at what intervals, the witness responded that he had seen her once or twice in the front building where the central headquarters was located. When asked if other department employees had also seen Susanna Sardaryan, Grigoryan responded that he didn’t know, how would he know?

To the judge’s question about how Grigoryan knew Susanna Sardaryan worked at the directorate, Grigoryan responded: “Well, if she’s at the directorate, Your Honor, she must be a directorate employee. I don’t think she would have come from somewhere else to the directorate at that time.”

According to Grigoryan, he never saw Susanna Sardaryan during inspections in formation; it was a large subdivision, it was possible, but he hadn’t seen her.

-Did you know all the employees of the Military Police directorate? -I wouldn’t say all of them. Those I’ve interacted with face-to-face, I might see them and ask who they are, be told who they are, and recognize them. It’s not like we could know everyone. -How did you know that person was specifically Susanna Sardaryan? -Well, they called her Susan, I can’t say if it’s Susan Sardaryan they’re talking about or not. That Susan person, I know she worked there, I saw her. I don’t have to know everyone by surname, Your Honor. -Did you inquire about this, or did you learn it by chance? -No, by chance, why would I go asking? It was by chance, it could only be by chance.

To the prosecutor’s question about whether Grigoryan had seen Sardaryan’s name on payroll lists when receiving his salary, or if he had ever looked at salary lists, Grigoryan responded that he couldn’t look; the accountant would mark his name, he would sign and receive his pay, it wasn’t his business.

-During your work in the AWOL department, did you have any seconded personnel? -I can’t say, I never took interest in personnel policy, didn’t know about it. Whether someone was seconded or our employee, I swear honestly, I didn’t inquire about such things. -When you gave testimony to the investigator, did you state the circumstances known to you, or could the investigator have guided you? -No, for God’s sake, why would the investigator guide or pressure me? What I knew at that moment is what I said. A lot of time has passed, there might be things I don’t remember, I’m not hiding anything.

Prosecutor Arsen Gevorgyan motioned to publish a segment of the witness’s pre-trial testimony due to existing contradictions. The prosecutor assessed that there were significant contradictions between the witness’s testimony during pre-trial investigation and during the main proceedings. During pre-trial investigation, the witness stated that he had not seen or known a person named Susanna Sardaryan, but in court, he stated that he had seen her twice and that she worked at the Military Police.

Attorney Alexander Kochubaev objected, saying he didn’t see any significant contradiction and noted that the witness hadn’t specifically recognized Susanna Sardaryan, he just knew that a person named Susanna worked there.

“That is, I don’t see a significant contradiction here, we don’t have any other contradictions either, therefore there is no need to publish the pre-trial testimony,” he stated.

The court granted the motion presented. During pre-trial investigation, Aghabek Grigoryan stated that Susanna Sardaryan had not worked at the Military Police, because if she had, it would have been impossible for him not to know about it, as he knew almost all the main officers of the apparatus, among whom Vladimir Gasparyan’s wife was not included, and they didn’t even know she was assigned to the Military Police or appointed to any position.

To the prosecutor’s question about whether the circumstances stated in the pre-trial testimony correspond to reality, Grigoryan responded: “Colonel, what you read, yes, that’s what I read, I remember. Susanna Sardaryan couldn’t have been Vladimir Gasparyan’s wife during that period. Susanna Sardaryan is a Military Police employee, Gasparyan’s wife for us at that time was Mrs. Iran.”

-In your pre-trial testimony, you said you didn’t know an employee named “Susanna Sardaryan.” -I’m saying the same thing now – I knew Susan as a regular employee, I can insist on that. -What accounts for the contradiction between your pre-trial testimony and what you’re saying in court?

Attorney Alexander Kochubaev objected to the question, saying: “The witness clearly answered that for us, Vladimir Gasparyan’s wife was Iran, and regarding Susanna Sardaryan’s service, whether she was Sardaryan or Gasparyan, he didn’t know about the woman herself. The witness had given an exhaustive answer, I request the question be withdrawn.”

The court partially granted the request to withdraw the question because the witness had said he knew a person named “Susan,” not specifically mentioning Susanna Sardaryan. He was asked to answer the remaining part.

-There could be more employees named Susanna. Specifically, she didn’t sit or work in the same room with me. That’s why I’m saying now that I knew a person named Susanna, but even today I might see a person named “Susanna Sardaryan” and not recognize her. -If you don’t know the surname of the Susanna you’re referring to, how do you know that the person you mentioned is Susanna Sardaryan, or how certain are you that she isn’t Susanna Sardaryan? How can you categorically deny knowing such a person? -I would find it difficult to answer that question.

To Attorney Alexander Kochubaev’s question about whether, now that Grigoryan has quite a bit of information, has he identified the Susanna he knew with Susanna Sardaryan, he responded that he hasn’t identified them, doesn’t even remember.

The witness examination concluded. The next court session in this case will take place on December 9 at 12:00.

Lilit Khachatryan