The Whole Truth About the Circumstances of the 'Bread Bringer' Death: Arpine Hovhannisyan

And so… it is time to dispel yet another myth: This is not an ordinary Facebook post where I contemplate writing briefly or at length; this is a painful story that needs to be told to the end—with all the details. This is what Arpine Hovhannisyan, the founder of the NGO 'Legal Education and Oversight' and former Deputy Speaker of Parliament, wrote on her Facebook page.

“Yesterday, on the occasion of a press release, Gevorg Kostanyan opened some brackets, but it is time to say what many of you do not know. For three years, I have been accused, both as a current and later as a former Minister of Justice, of being involved in A. Sargsyan's death, although I have had several opportunities to explain that I had zero connection to his ARREST, DETENTION, and naturally also to his DEATH.”

“At the time, Shant Harutyunyan's son, Shaheen, who was one of the first to call for my resignation, withdrew this demand three days later, understanding that I had NOTHING to do with and could not have anything to do with that case. Later, the boy's fairness allowed him to say the truth even after the regime change, when it was so easy to link everything to the previous government. I am again thankful to him for this act.”

“But that did not prevent many ignorant individuals, the confused, those who left morality behind in a memory mirror, and those who made death a mint, from continuing the disgusting process of collecting likes with accusations of death. At various stages, I have remained silent for different reasons, believing that the truth would eventually announce its arrival, and everyone would understand that I am NOT TO BLAME FOR ANYONE'S DEATH and that I sleep peacefully at night, not because I am cynical, but because I am clean before my conscience.”

“After the regime change, I was still calm and confident, as Nikol Pashinyan had been directly responsible for this issue, having mentioned the names of those he believed were guilty from the rostrum of the National Assembly, from near the entrance of the Prosecutor General's Office, and other places. But when several MPs in power (especially trolls and bots) began to repeat the accusations, I realized that they had not only read nothing nor familiarized themselves with the thoughts of their leader but also lacked even the basic morality to refrain from unjustly accusing a person.”

“It is time to present to you some known and unknown circumstances and close this topic. I specifically emphasize that I do not aim to justify myself, nor am I trying to convince or persuade anyone, but I will outline the events and circumstances.”

BACKGROUND After obtaining the relevant documents regarding Arthur Sargsyan's illness (after submission to the penitentiary and the European Court), when the lawyers had also applied for interim measures to the ECHR, I was in constant contact with Gevorg Kostanyan, the Armenian Representative at the European Court of Human Rights, to urgently clarify the impact of the diseases presented in the documents on the situation of detention. In other words, immediate examinations and studies were organized.

Listening to the doctors' opinion about Arthur's incurable illness and confirming that the concerns were valid, I had a phone conversation with the then Chief Prosecutor Arthur Davtyan of Armenia and presented the situation. Why him? Because he was the top responsible person in the country for overseeing the legality of pre-trial proceedings (read: in this case, detention). I believe that honesty will allow Arthur Davtyan to not deny the conversation that took place via 'super' telephone connection, and common sense and logic will not allow to deny the conversation that took place via VIBER. I was the one to call.

Thus, Gevorg and I have steadfastly and swiftly done what we were obliged to do at that moment, at that stage—within our jurisdiction.

After all this, on December 30, 2016, based on the conclusion of the medical council, the decision made by the PROSECUTOR changed the chosen measure of restraint from detention for Arthur Sargsyan, and he was RELEASED. On the same day, a forensic medical examination was appointed, which was tasked to the interdepartmental commission of the Ministry of Health, as it was a legal requirement.

On January 31, 2017, we received the examination conclusion, which indicated that our concerns were valid and that Arthur Sargsyan's illness was included in the list of diseases that hinder serving a sentence and therefore detention could NOT BE applied to him.

REPETITIVE FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IT After the January 31, 2017 examination, a series of events occurred, which, ladies and gentlemen, you should reflect upon—awaiting responses from responsible persons. On January 31, 2017, when the interdepartmental commission stated that Arthur Sargsyan had an INCOMPATIBLE illness with detention, the investigator issued a decision on the SAME DAY to appoint a repeated forensic medical examination—presumably not without the supervisory prosecutor's knowledge. QUESTION: why? What justification was based on that? What did not satisfy the investigator and prosecutor that on the same day they decided to appoint another examination?

On February 8, 2017, the conclusion of the REPEATED forensic examination was received, which contradicts the first examination, stating that Arthur's illness does not prevent detention; moreover, he does not even need inpatient treatment. On February 8, 2017, i.e., on the same day, when the expert stated that Arthur could be detained, the investigator decided to arrest Arthur Sargsyan, and the following day the judge, via decision, again places Arthur Sargsyan in detention.

QUESTION: why does it take eight days for the repeated examination, and how is it that the conclusion is received on the same day Arthur is arrested (did the investigator perhaps know about the answer beforehand) and the next day he is detained again? Isn’t that strange?

NOTICE: I learned about Arthur Sargsyan's second detention from the television; the Minister of Justice has no official connection with the investigator, prosecutor, expert, and other actors involved. The ANSWER to this issue lies with the pre-investigation body, and the Minister of Justice has zero jurisdiction.

Ask Rustam Badalyan if he can tell someone to arrest or detain or if he has any connection to these processes since the responsibility in such decisions lies with the penitentiary institution.

On February 13, 2017, MPs Nikol Pashinyan and Edmond Marukyan, unable to visit Arthur Sargsyan due to the investigator's decision, met with former General Arthur Davtyan and discussed the issue of changing Arthur Sargsyan's detention. You read that right, they met with the CHIEF PROSECUTOR, not with the Minister of Justice Arpine Hovhannisyan, since this matter was within Arthur Davtyan's jurisdiction. After this meeting, Arthur Davtyan would discuss the personal guarantee from MPs for about 26 days to clarify whether the MPs had credibility or not to replace the detention. Ultimately, on March 6, Arthur Sargsyan's measure of restraint was changed.

QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERING Based on the above, it becomes clear that at least the following questions should be answered, regarding who requested that infamous second examination, and WHY, on whose instructions, who and what instructions were given to the expert or whether there were any at all, and hold the guilty accountable. By the way, except for some facts, all this was already known to Nikol Pashinyan, thus it’s rather surprising that when he was an MP, he remembered everyone's spheres of responsibility, and now he seems to forget.

Note that I am not accusing anyone; however, I clearly outline the decision-makers and their superiors.
1. The investigator and the head of the Anti-Corruption Committee's Investigative Division (responsible for the detention request) 2. Supervisory prosecutor and his superior—the Chief Prosecutor, now General-Lieutenant Arthur Davtyan (responsible for checking the legality of detention) 3. The judge—by the way, now the President of Yerevan City Court under this ruling, Arthur Mkrtchyan (responsible for the detention decision) 4. Head of the forensic medical examinations division of the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise, currently the director of the same bureau, Aram Hovhannisyan (responsible for clarifying whether the illness is compatible or incompatible with detention). These are the officials who still continue in office today. Moreover, the key officials who played a role in this issue have been promoted or rewarded under the new government.

Can we assume that these officials are no longer responsible for any episode related to Arthur Sargsyan, or…?

PS: Why did I not speak up earlier? Immediately after Arthur Sargsyan's death, there were already criminal cases initiated in this regard, and I waited for the truth to be revealed—both before and after the regime change. But time passed, and the disgusting manipulations continued. This was an occasion to speak, although I was not inclined to, as I usually do not respond to absurd charges. From now on, I will remain silent on this topic, as I have expressed my thoughts exhaustively; my conscience is clear, and my words are truthful—not said for those who love or hate me, but for those who need reality.

Dear journalists, please use this material's title as the header, as no other thought comprehensively reflects my message. Stay peaceful,” Arpine Hovhannisyan wrote.