Maneuvering of Justice: Manvel Grigoryan's Nephew Convicted Only for Violating Weapons Regulations in 1994 Murder Case

The case of Hrant Grigoryan, the nephew of former MP and former president of the Yerkrapah Volunteers Union Manvel Grigoryan, has been sent back for a new investigation by the Court of Appeals to the general jurisdiction court of Armavir region.

This information was shared by Gor Abrahamyan, advisor to the Armenian Prosecutor General on media relations, on his Facebook page.

The Prosecutor's Office was informed that on February 23, 2022, the Armenian Court of Appeals made the decision to satisfy the prosecutor's appeal and send the case of the murder of Mher Poghosyan, which occurred on April 16, 1994, in the restaurant complex in the Taronik village of Armavir region, back to the general jurisdiction court of Armavir for a new investigation.

To recall, on December 19, 1994, within one day, the Ashtarak District Court issued a verdict that recognized Hrant Grigoryan guilty under Article 259.1, point “B” of the Criminal Code of Armenia for violating the rules of handling weapons, munitions, explosives, and other materials, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment.

In July 2018, a complaint was submitted to the Vagarshapat division of the Armenian Police by the son of the deceased, Edward Poghosyan, stating that Hrant Grigoryan deliberately killed his father, M. Poghosyan, on April 16, 1994, and that the real circumstances of the incident had been distorted.

During the preliminary investigation conducted by the Main Military Investigation Department of the RA Investigative Committee, extensive investigative and procedural actions along with operational-search measures were carried out. As a result of proper prosecutorial oversight, new circumstances, which were unknown to the court during previous proceedings, were revealed, evidencing that the crime committed by the convicted was more serious than the one for which he had been convicted.

Accordingly, these findings indicated that Hrant Grigoryan had killed Mher Poghosyan on April 16, 1994, with hooligan motives and in a manner endangering many lives, yet he was only convicted for violating weapon handling regulations. To conceal this fact, a letter was provided under the signature of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Armenia, falsely stating that M. Poghosyan had died during combat operations, and a personal file was created in his name at the MoD's DSS, with M. Poghosyan posthumously awarded a medal for bravery by President R. Kocharian.

Based on the findings from the preliminary investigation, a decision was made on December 10, 2018, by the Armenian military prosecutor's office to initiate proceedings due to newly emerged circumstances.

On February 20, 2019, the military prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor General V. Harutyunyan, filed an appeal requesting the Annulment of the December 19, 1994 court decision and to send the case back to the first instance court for a new hearing.

The Court of Appeals fully satisfied the military prosecutor's appeal on March 5, 2020.

In the preparatory phase of the case, upon considering the defense's motion on July 23, 2021, the first instance court of Armavir region decided to grant the appeal and terminate the proceedings, citing the lapse of time for prosecuting the criminal responsibility.

Against this decision, a prosecutorial appeal was filed on August 27, 2021, which was completely satisfied by the Armenian Court of Appeals in its decision today.

The Prosecutor's Office appealed because the first instance court did not provide a clear justification in its judicial act regarding why the criminal prosecution against H. Grigoryan was discontinued on those grounds, especially since the Court of Appeals had already established that new circumstances existed indicating the possibility of H. Grigoryan committing a more serious crime (than the one for which he had already been convicted). Moreover, the Court of Appeals noted that the qualification of the charges previously brought against Hrant Grigoryan may have been incorrect, necessitating a new, multifaceted, and objective investigation to clarify the actual circumstances of the case and provide the correct classification of the crime committed by Hrant Grigoryan.