You Think it’s That Easy Putting Aside the Guilty, Patronizing them, and Sentencing the Innocent? –Gagik Jhangiryan on Decision by the ECHR

Guest of “R-Evolution” broadcast on Armenia TV on Sunday was Gagik Jhangiryan, ANC member. During the meeting he touched upon the well-known “Mataghis” case and decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in this regard.

–Recently the European Court of Human Rights—ECHR, regarding the case “Zalyan and others vs Armenia” decided that procedural violations have been recorded during the investigation against the applicants, and obliged the RA Government to pay EUR 50 thousand indemnity payment to the applicants. I want to know your opinion on this decision on account of the fact, that you were RA Military Prosecutor during that case.  

–Most part of expressed standpoints leave impression among our people and society that, seemingly, the ECHR confirmed facts of torture against the accused, and defined that amount as a result of those tortures to be paid by our state. Not at all. I want to directly state for non-legist community that the ECHR has defined that records of the so-called tortures haven’t been properly checked by the investigative body, Prosecution, and etc., and didn’t define proper procedures.

It seems that there was military prosecutor neither before nor after Jhangiryan. The case of Artur Mkrtchayn, sentenced to life imprisonment, is being discussed, and I don’t know why they apply to Jhangiryan, when he wasn’t the then Military Prosecutor, not only during the commitment of the crime, but Jhangiryan was appointed Military Prosecutor only one year later after the plea came into force.

–Lawyer of the young men stated this was a total victory for them.

– Very well, now let’s see what’s the problem? It wasn’t Jhangiryan’s personal viewpoint, the same was maintained by the military prosecutor, who followed me, after returning the case to additional investigation, referring the same persons, and the same case. When charges were defended in the court, the third prosecutor, current RA Prosecutor General, was in that position. However, I don’t refuse, that I’m consistent in my opinion on “Mataghis” case.

– That is, now, after the decision by the ECHR, you consider these three young men “murderers”?

–I stated on that, when Shirak District Court of First Instance returned a verdict of not guilty, and those persons mentioned by you even applied to the court, that I seemingly offend their good name and reputation. Thanks Goodness, the court defended the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

But you know where the shoe pinches, this conundrum won’t end, as 3 years have passed after justification of those young men—where are the murderers in this case? Servicemen were killed, beaten with iron rods, two hours later the beaters came and saw there were no signs of life, and threw the servicemen into water. Ok, 3 years have passed, if it weren’t these young men, then who were they? Why isn’t it being uncovered? Why these human rights advocates, who were making such a noise, that “We won, we have won the Republic of Armenia,” why don’t they protect right of those victims? Did you ever hear that any human rights advocate defended interests of the two young men? Moreover, one of these 3 young men currently is busy with human rights protection. Wouldn’t that be the case of his life, so that he could prove, support and contribute to uncovering of real murderers? But he should be cleaned up in the end, shouldn’t he?

–They used to say that they met you in your office, have undergone torture and etc. What can you say in this regard?

–I’m not going to justify myself, I’ll make another statement, that conundrum on this case won’t end, murderers won’t be revealed, as they have already been revealed. Another consequence should be a subject for investigation, that upon whose interest and instructions the Criminal Chamber recognized inadmissible the main proof of “Mataghis” case? All these occurred after the summer of 2006, and this is its implication. Moreover, after the decision by the Chamber, I put my application of resignation before the then president.

– Regarding that case?

– Yes, regarding that case, I said I’m ready to resign, but, please, instruct to check whether the young men were murderers or not. Maybe I have never published those names, but, now I will. 4 months later, two members of the Constitutional Court, former judges, told me, that until that moment they hadn’t informed me, but they had been assigned for the review, and they had reported the president in written form that the military prosecutor was right, and the Chamber—not. Moreover, the second president assigned the then prosecutor general to quickly and operatively conclude additional investigation and send it to the court with the same charges.

– Presently the ECHR has returned a verdict, in fact, RA Government will be obliged to pay that amount…

–I’m for the point that the money was charged from all those guilty in omissions; the court is able to do this through regressive claim. I’m not only for, but I’m interested, and I hope my claim, finally, will become a subject for investigation, on which both Prosecutor General’s Office and Special Service are aware of, and I’m not going to say precisely, so that I’m reporting of crime.

“Mataghis” case was revealed 4 months after the case, most of our reporters and human rights advocates don’t even know where Mataghis is located. Not only Military Prosecution operated there with its investigative body, but Military Police, NKR army counterintelligence as well. NKR Ministry of Internal Affairs, all army structures have also worked on the case, and you think it’s that easy to put aside the guilty, patronizing them, and sentence the guilty? And that I’m really that person to sentence those 20 year-old innocent young men? I accept, that there were many, who were worth sentencing, and I didn’t do, but I have never charged an innocent person.

–Did you come across with relatives of murdered young men after quitting the position of the Military Prosecutor?

–Sure, after each judicial act, they approach me, especially, if I’m not mistaken, mother of Roman Mnatsakanyan, and she called me 4 days ago, and was asking me to invite her to some TV channel, so that she may express her standpoint how these three young men were attacking on parents and saying, “It served them right.” Let that woman come and speak.

–Do you want to apply to the ECHR as a lawyer and an MP?

–Why should I apply to, the ECHR returned its verdict, the rest is an issue of interstate law enforcement. As I said, the shoe pinches  in the decision by the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal in 2006.