Epress.am News from Armenia
The defense in the case of political activist Shant Harutyunyan and his friends said in court today that the testimony of police officer Gegham Khachatryan (named as a victim in this case) in court and the one he gave when questioned by police during the preliminary investigation contradict each other.
Tigran Petrosyan's attorney Ara Zakaryan read in court the victim's testimony given to police. According to Zakaryan, though the officer claims he beckoned Harutyunyan and urged him not to cross the street, video footage shows that the victim didn't try to speak with Harutyunyan, but approached him from behind and grabbed him by his neck.
In response, Khachatryan said it's just that his voice is not heard in the video. Addressing Khachatryan, Harutyunyan asked why did he whisper in his ear that he (Harutyunyan) is an agent of Turkey.
Harutyunyan asked whether Khachatryan was trying to provoke him or fulfilling a specific order. The police officer denied that he said such a thing.
Present in court today were Tigran Arakelyan, who was previously imprisoned on political grounds, and Heritage Party leader Raffi Hovannisian. Present at yesterday's court session was Armenian National Congress MP, former prisoner of conscience Nikol Pashinyan.
Recall, Harutyunyan and several of his supporters were arrested on November 5, 2013, at the start of an anti-government march, and criminal proceedings were launched against them. They were charged under RA Criminal Code Article 316 Section 2 ("violence against a representative of the authorities that is dangerous for life or health") and Article 185 Section 2 Paragraph 1 ("willful destruction or spoilage of somebody’s property, which caused significant damage, committed by arson, explosion or other publicly dangerous method"). However, the initial charge was removed and replaced with RA Criminal Code Article 258 Section 4 ("hooliganism committed with a weapon or another item used as a weapon").
According to the case materials, the defendants on November 5 attacked police officers. The defendants don't admit to the charges. They claim that they were acting in self-defense: they hit back at men who attacked them, interfered with their protest, and were in civilian clothes.