Psychological Evaluation Assigned for Father of Missing Soldier

On January 10, around 21:30, Gurgen Vardanyan, a resident of Kotayk Province, drove his vehicle into the gates of the Ministry of Defense, breaking through and entering. Subsequently, he smashed the entrance doors of the administrative building and crashed his vehicle into the structure. According to the citizen’s brother, Harant Vardanyan, his brother took this action due to the loss of his son, uncertainty, and severe emotional and psychological distress.

The citizen has been detained by officers of the Military Police. A criminal case has been initiated in connection with the incident. In response to our inquiry, the Investigative Committee stated that two charges have been brought against the father of the missing serviceman. The investigation is ongoing: “Based on hooligan motives, intentionally grossly violating public order, and illegally entering a specially protected military area, on January 13, 2021, Gurgen Vardanyan was charged under Article 258, Part 4 (hooliganism) and Article 327.6, Part 5 (illegal entry into a military unit or another specially protected military area) of the RA Criminal Code. A signature not to leave was applied as a measure of restraint, and he has been released from the restrictions. The investigation into the criminal case is ongoing,” the Investigative Committee responded.

We spoke with Gurgen Vardanyan's lawyer, Karen Stepanyan, asking whether Vardanyan admits to the charges against him. The lawyer replied that, in legal terms, he does not accept the charges. “In terms of substance, he accepts it, but in legal terms, he does not accept it, meaning that the act, in our view, occurred under different circumstances which, in our perspective, do not constitute a crime. His mental state has greatly influenced everything associated with it, and now an evaluation has been appointed to clarify his condition and several other related circumstances. The investigative body, based on the given testimony describing his mental condition, called us to inform us of this decision, which aligns with our viewpoint. We have initially been in favor of the Investigative Committee appointing an evaluation to assess the mental state of the individual involved. From my perspective, and without the eyes of a psychologist, his mental state is directly related to his action. He cannot even provide a real explanation of why it happened that way, why he was unable to control himself at that moment, etc. The act appears, at first glance, to be some illegal and prohibited action; however, it is essential to consider this issue from all angles, and when we look at it from every side, the investigative body has objectively assigned this evaluation. What results we will have no longer depends on us or the investigative body; it depends on the relevant forensic psychologists, and it will be clear to what extent the mental state affected those actions,” said the lawyer.