Smbat Gogyan Provides Clarification Regarding Reporting a Crime

The chairman of the High Qualification Committee, Smbat Gogyan, wrote on his Facebook page: “Since journalists are frequently asking whether I really refused to report a crime, there is a need for clarification.

When the Special Investigation Committee summoned me to testify on the basis of Minister Arayik Harutyunyan's report on May 25, a crime report had already been filed. By the minister. While examining the case, I was involved as a witness and a possible defendant, should it be determined that there was a false denunciation. I answered all the investigator's questions, and in the end, the investigator terminated the case, which I perceive as confirmation of the veracity of the facts I presented. The investigator said, ‘Dear, I do not consider this matter in the criminal-legal field, go and resolve the issue in a working regime.’ Naturally, the investigator is neither a scientist nor an education/science manager. In working relationships, values and professional qualities are important, which I have spoken about from the beginning.

For the complete clarity of the picture, let me present a section from the investigator’s decision. 1) In the first paragraph, the investigator states that the presence of interconnected individuals in the commission is not considered officially criminally punishable, especially since the commission has not entirely denied the instances of plagiarism. I must mention that there is testimony (from another person) in the case stating that the commission initially denied the situation of plagiarism altogether, though after the uproar in the media, it somewhat changed. For me, this is an unacceptable practice.

2) The phrasing of the second paragraph justifying the decision not to initiate a case is purely legal and again a matter of values. Do we consider the fact of having a plagiarizing rector to be normal or not? The answer to this question must be clearly articulated by the body responsible for formulating the strategy in education and science at the highest level. The investigator cannot answer this question.

3) I will not comment on the third paragraph, and the fourth and fifth paragraphs are entirely unrelated to the topic. I am very happy that the collective supports its leader, but that is not my business or the investigator’s. Such examples are numerous in both the educational and healthcare, and judicial systems. Moreover, the given environment is often unhealthy, sometimes toxic.

Creating value and meaning is a difficult job, but in order to create, it is essential not to betray your own values. The post-revolutionary spirit was decisive, uncompromising in the initial phase, resulting in some people leaving their positions, and we must not allow that spirit to be extinguished when faced with the personal interests of a specific individual.”