Victim's Side Raises Concerns Over Lack of Objective Investigation in Case of Three Soldiers' Murder

In connection with the high-profile murder of three Armenian soldiers at a combat post in August, the victim's side has expressed doubts about the objectivity of the ongoing criminal investigation. Hayarpi Sargsyan, the representative of the legal heir of soldier Murad Muradyan, shared details about the case's proceedings in an interview with Factinfo, raising concerns regarding the impartiality of the investigation.

It is important to recall that on August 19, 2021, at approximately 1:30 AM, the bodies of conscript soldiers Goris Artak Sahakyan, Levon Rafayel Harutyunyan, and Murad Ashoti Muradyan, who were on duty at the combat post, were discovered in a shelter with gunshot wounds.

Currently, only the former senior of the post and one of the co-servicemen are charged and detained in connection with the case. Sargsyan revealed that she was officially engaged as the representative of the victim's side on November 16, even though she submitted a request for access to the relevant documents on November 9, which was not duly facilitated.

Sargsyan believes that the investigator is biased concerning the outcome of the case, as they are concealing available documents related to the criminal case from the victim's side. She has filed a motion against the investigator, which was denied. Additionally, the attorney claims that her client was not recognized as the legal heir of the victim but rather as a legal representative.

According to Sargsyan, on November 16, she received several decisions and later a forensic report. However, the conclusions from the forensic examinations of the bodies are still unavailable. Other expert analyses, including forensic ballistic and trace evidence examinations, as well as toxicological and technical forensic examinations, have also not been completed, and no genetic testing has been ordered.

Regarding the forensic examinations, Sargsyan noted that the two accused, two surviving soldiers from the post, as well as the former senior of the post and the senior of an adjacent post, underwent forensic examinations. The forensic findings indicated bodily injuries on one of the surviving soldiers and the post's senior accused in the case.

The first case showed an injury with a history of approximately five days, while the senior's injuries have varying timelines, including 1-2 days. The first showed signs of minor damage, described as burns caused by accidental contact with a cigarette, while the senior has lacerations that also do not indicate minor damage with a history of 1-4 days.

In response to the suggestion that one of the accused might have been subjected to sexual violence, the attorney stated that no traces of violence were found on the body of the accused, according to the pathologist's conclusions.

Concerning the examination of the crime scene, Sargsyan noted that details emerged from the decision to conduct forensic ballistic and complex trace evidence examinations. It appears that the crime scene was inspected both on the day of the incident—August 19—and again on August 20 for additional checks. Weapons, cartridges, and bullets were seized from the scene on August 19, while magazines and additional cartridges were confiscated on August 20—raising questions about why these items were taken the following day rather than simultaneously with the weapons.

Sargsyan concluded by asserting that there is a lack of objectivity in the criminal investigation.