No Suspects in 'Masivtsi Andik' Murder, Only Accomplice on Trial

In the murder case of Andranik Harutyunyan, known as 'Masivtsi Andik', only the accomplice is facing charges, while the main suspect remains unidentified. It is recalled that on July 2, 2019, at 23:10, the Police Department of Nor Nork received a call from the 'St. Grigor Lusavorich Medical Center' that Andranik Harutyunyan, born in 1973, had been brought in with a gunshot wound.

A criminal case was initiated under Article 104, Part 1 and Article 235, Part 1 of the RA Criminal Code. According to preliminary investigation data, Andranik Harutyunyan was fatally wounded by Suleyman Miyiev, a Russian citizen, who has been charged under Article 104, Part 2, Point 6 and Article 235, Part 1 of the RA Criminal Code, namely, murder in a manner dangerous to many lives and illegal possession and acquisition of weapons and ammunition. Miyiev has been put on the wanted list and has not yet been found.

Meanwhile, a 50-year-old resident of Yerevan, Armen Gharibyan, has been detained on charges of aiding the murder, and the case is already in court under Judge Artush Gabrielian. Gharibyan has been in custody for about a year, while his lawyer insists that there is no evidence linking him to the crime.

In an interview with Factinfo, defense attorney Arsen Sardarayan noted that the overwhelming majority of the materials in the case—99 percent—concern Suleyman Miyiev. Acknowledging that he does not wish to violate Miyiev's presumption of innocence, the lawyer pointed out that the only circumstance being used to associate his client with the incident is a phone found at Gharibyan's house, which allegedly had contact with Suleyman Miyiev. According to Sardarayan, the supposed phone call cannot serve as evidence of complicity and is not sufficient to prove that Gharibyan was aware of Miyiev’s plans.

Regarding the connection with the victim, Sardarayan stated that his client had no ties to Andranik Harutyunyan and is preparing to submit a motion during the court session to examine evidence specifically related to his client. He plans to request that the evidence concerning only his client be separated for further examination, believing that the existing evidence mainly pertains to Suleyman Miyiev.