My husband spent a pile of money. The mother of the deceased soldier presents new details

The Court of Appeals continued the examination of the appeals filed in the case of Narek Ch. by a panel consisting of T. Sahakyan, S. Hambardzumyan, and S. Marabyan.

The case was heard at the court of general jurisdiction in the Syunik region, presided over by Napoleon Ohanyan.

Narek Ch. was accused of repeatedly insulting Private Sevak H., who was a conscript soldier under his command, while fulfilling his military duties.

According to the charges, from early January 2016 to March 24 of the same year, Narek Ch. periodically reproached Private Sevak H. on various occasions, demanding he perform unpleasant tasks outside the scope of military service, such as retrieving his military equipment, making his bed, and generally cleaning against Sevak's will. Through this behavior and continuous use of abusive language, Narek Ch. reportedly humiliated Sevak's honor and dignity.

Specifically, on March 21, 2016, around 9:30 PM, while being on duty for the evening roll call, Narek Ch., having forgotten to take the roll call book to the parade ground, sent Private Sevak H. to retrieve it from the barracks. When Sevak was late, in front of other soldiers, Narek Ch. said, “What the hell happened?” After Sevak returned, he again insulted him with sexual slurs and added, “Was I not against it?”

Additionally, on March 16, 2016, after the “Sleep” command, while under the influence of alcohol, Narek Ch. physically assaulted Sevak H. by slapping him while he lay on his bed and forced him to give up his mobile phone.

As a result of such treatment and being in a state of mental distress, on March 24, 2016, around 9:10 AM, Private Sevak H. shot himself at the training ground.

Narek Ch. did not acknowledge his guilt in causing the soldier's suicide and other charges.

According to the defendant, he was Sevak's only friend, and as friends, they joked together, claiming he did not humiliate or insult Sevak, nor did he resort to violence against him.

He speculated that Private Sevak H. did not commit suicide but died due to issues with the weapon, suggesting Sevak had no intention of self-harm. He noted that Sevak had made several plans for 2017-2018 in his notebook after service.

The court concluded that Narek Ch.’s testimony lacked credibility.

Criminal proceedings against Narek Ch. for certain instances of violence against the soldier were terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Narek Ch. was found guilty under Article 110, Part 2, Article 358.1, Part 1, and Article 358.1, Part 3, Clause 3 of the RA Criminal Code, and was sentenced to 4 years, 3 months, and 5 days in prison.

The term of the sentence will be calculated from the moment Narek Ch. was detained.

The prosecutor has filed an appeal against this verdict, demanding a harsher sentence of 6 years, 3 months, and 5 days in prison.

Narek Ch.'s defense lawyers have also appealed the verdict, seeking his acquittal, arguing that the preliminary investigation agency had focused solely on one hypothesis—the suicide theory.

The defense contended that if the young man made far-reaching plans for 2017-2018 and asked his father during a phone call the night before for food and hygiene items, it would be unreasonable to consider that he intended to commit suicide. The mother of the soldier argued against the suicide theory, saying her son was in good spirits after a phone call with her that evening and had great plans.

The defense raised concerns regarding the forensic psychological examination conducted posthumously, deeming it unprofessional and unconvincing, as well as the conclusions from the victim's autopsy.

During this court session, the defense attorney introduced new motions, stating that new circumstances emerged that could significantly impact the outcome of the case. The mother of the victim was recognized as his legal successor in the appellate court, who had not been present at the hearings and asked to proceed in her absence.

She expressed to the defense team that her son did not commit suicide but was murdered, referencing the lack of a found bullet casing at the scene as evidence. She emphasized that her son had a positive demeanor immediately before the event and maintained that Narek Ch.'s actions could not have driven him to take his own life.

In her written response, the mother claimed her husband had 'spent a pile of money' to ensure that the charges against Narek Ch. for inducing her son's suicide remained unchanged.

Defense attorney V. Hovhannisyan submitted the victim's legal successor's signed written responses as new evidence that supported their grounds for appeal.

The prosecution attorney, S. Khachatryan, stated he did not oppose the inclusion of these written texts as part of the criminal case but insisted they should not be regarded as evidence due to the changes in the victim's side's stance after the successor changed.

The court ultimately decided to continue hearing the appeals and will summon the experts from the forensic psychological assessment and the autopsy report for questioning.