David Tonoyan Issues Statement

Considering the inquiries presented by various media outlets during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case, as well as the completion of the preliminary investigation, former Minister of Defense of Armenia David Tonoyan deemed it necessary to address several of these issues.

– Mr. Tonoyan, it is stated in all the statements of your legal team that your arrest and detention are illegal. In particular, it was mentioned in the statement of October 11, 2021, that "we are dealing with a classic example of conspiracy." Who are the conspirators and what are their motives?

– The conspirators are those based on whose information the criminal case was initiated, charges have been filed, and former and current officials have been arrested. The conspirators are those whose reports have led to the political will being expressed for the uncovering of such cases, as stated from the podium of the National Assembly. Moreover, after the completion of the preliminary investigation, the arguments of former and current officials, as well as MPs, who had a direct interest in providing and reporting the mentioned information against me were not substantiated. Their names are not worthy of mention; furthermore, the statements of these individuals have been public.

Even if the unfounded criminal case against me were to be dismissed, I would nonetheless demand an open trial to present the public with the unfounded accusations of the preliminary investigation. Even now, after the completion of the preliminary investigation, if an accusatory conclusion is reached and the case is sent to court after being approved by the prosecutor's office, I will demand an open, public trial, of course, taking into account the restrictions related to state and military secrecy.

– “After being dismissed from the position of Minister of Defense, Mr. Tonoyan has refrained from comments, considering state secrecy, national security interests of Armenia, and interstate relations. Even today, Mr. Tonoyan prioritizes these interests over his own and, possessing large volumes of information, does not utilize it in the public domain for self-defense.” This excerpt from the October 11 statement was widely debated and misinterpreted. In particular, there were suggestions that you are thus sending a “message” to the authorities. What do you say about that?

– Until now, I have maintained restraint in terms of engaging in political processes, and that is what my lawyers' statement has been about. There will still be opportunities to present my clarifications regarding the 44-day war through the investigative commissions that will be established, provided that the objectivity and impartiality of their work are ensured.

– Your lawyers have expressed confidence that the results of a special professional examination will provide substantiated and unbiased responses to the claims about “low quality” and “non-compliant” weapons and ammunition regarding the Armed Forces of Armenia. Do you believe it will be possible to organize an independent examination and why do you think the examination assigned by the preliminary investigation bodies regarding the quality of the missiles was left incomplete?

– I had no basis to reject or disregard the reports of the responsible personnel from the General Staff and responsible sectoral bodies regarding the suitability, maintenance, and extension of the service life of the ammunition. Especially since the production of ammunition and the extension in many other countries had been performed according to the regulations in those countries, and missiles produced in the same years (1988-1991) are still in operation. Even an unobjective preliminary investigation did not confirm the alleged low quality or unsuitability of the missiles, due to the incomplete explosive technical examination and the failure to test the missiles. It was clear that if an examination were to be conducted, the applicability of the missiles would be confirmed. I am more than confident that even with a strong desire, it would be simply impossible to contradict the results of an independent professional examination.

Moreover, due to the seizure of missiles and the postponement of the preliminary investigation, as well as the long-term prospect of legal proceedings, the opportunity for extending the life of these missiles will be obstructed, which poses a more real threat to our army than the damage that is attempted to be attributed to the individuals involved in the case. At the same time, it should be noted that formulations in the charges put forth, such as “being informed by the nature of the office about the expiration of the missiles' validity,” “having reached preliminary agreements with officials of the Armed Forces of Armenia and other individuals,” “purchased at a significantly higher market price,” “for profit-driven motives,” “disregarding the actual demand for similar missiles in the Ministry of Defense,” etc., have not been substantiated in any way within the criminal case. On the contrary, there are numerous evidences within the case that refute them.

– Your lawyers have recently “called the attention of the political leadership to the non-objective investigation being conducted against David Tonoyan, the vivid evidence of which is the subjective and unprofessional interpretations of the criminal case based solely on assumptions.” Did the political leadership, in particular the Prime Minister, ever point out the issues regarding “low quality” weapons and ammunition during your tenure?

– I don’t recall any such remarks from the Prime Minister. I believe if he had any, he would have mentioned it, as there has been no shortage of information, and the entire procurement process of the Ministry of Defense since my appointment has been under the daily supervision, inspection, and examination of the NSS, the Prosecutor's Office, the Investigative Committee, and the SNB. There were numerous occasions when multiple agencies conducted investigations on the same procurement incident. The procurement decision was made to ensure the operational capability of the Armed Forces of Armenia, and the ammunition in question was used during combat readiness and even military operations, and this is an undeniable fact.

In his interview on December 24, 2021, the Prime Minister mentioned that he has a reliable specialist who, if necessary, he asks to review and evaluate the verdicts. Was the issue of “supply of unusable missiles” submitted for review to the Prime Minister's reliable specialist or not?

– Opinions can be found in the media suggesting that you are being made a “scapegoat” for the defeat in the 2020 war. What do you say about that?

– The visible desire to find a “scapegoat” is seemingly hovering in the political field, but I think there will be surprises in this regard. One thing is clear: we are dealing with a fervent desire to discredit me and the defense system. A vivid proof of this is that having information that “low quality” missiles had been operational even during the 44-day war and solved combat tasks, the prosecuting body nonetheless released a statement that “the funds allocated to the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia were used to procure missiles that did not meet technical specifications and the requirements of the Armenian armed forces, which were significantly overpriced and had exhausted their suitability for operation, as evidenced by the fact that a part of the missiles was not fired off for some time after delivery and was removed from the balance, while others were not used at all, including during the 44-day war that began on September 27, 2020.” Rest assured, that under different outcomes of the war, such criminal cases would not have been initiated. The opponent has poured onto the heads of the adversary much older munitions than the ones attributed to me. As I stated in my message on November 20, 2020, I am willing to bear my share of responsibility. But only for my actions and not for the inactions.