Woman Killed in Front of Three-Year-Old Child: Details

The charge against Narek Sargsyan, son of the mayor of Mrgavet community, who is accused of murdering a woman, has been aggravated. He is now also charged with particular cruelty displayed during the murder. It turns out that the woman was strangled in front of a three-year-old child.

Recall that the body of the victim, 35-year-old Tatevik Abrahamyan, was found on May 5, 2022, in one of the apartments in Yerevan, showing signs of violence around the neck and face. She was the daughter of the former head of the Kotayk Regional Police and police colonel Avetik Abrahamyan, and worked as a lecturer at Yerevan State University. In the framework of the criminal case, Tatevik's husband, Narek Sargsyan, was arrested and later taken into custody. He was charged under the first part of Article 104 of the former Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, which indicates murder characteristics. Narek Sargsyan is the son of the mayor of Mrgavet, who is accused of strangling his wife.

The preliminary investigation in the case has recently been completed, and a preliminary court session will take place in the coming days. Narek Sargsyan's defense attorney, Anna Tsarukyan, told “Factinfo” that the charge has changed and been aggravated; he is now charged according to the second paragraph of Article 155, part 6 of the current Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, under characteristics of murder with particular cruelty. According to the prosecuting authority, the woman was strangled in front of her three-year-old child.

However, the defense asserts that there is no factual data to suggest that the child was present at the scene, even if it could be established that it was Narek Sargsyan who committed the act. Moreover, an expert opinion has been presented, which has been disputed. According to Tsarukyan, the expert conclusion states that the child has perception issues for his age, and the child could not fully comprehend the incident in a legal, theoretical, or objective reality; thus, the element of particular cruelty is excluded. Furthermore, there are indications in the case files suggesting that the child could not have been at the scene because he had left the house.

Additionally, it should be understood that the Constitution clearly guarantees the right not to testify against close relatives. The child has the right to choose, but since he is a minor, he cannot exercise that right. The defense continues to assert that Narek Sargsyan had no connection to the incident.

“We have a witness who states that at the time of the incident, within a certain timeframe, he saw Narek Sargsyan knocking on the victim's door, while evidence shows that at that exact moment, Narek Sargsyan was elsewhere,” the lawyer noted. Another circumstance, which according to the defense, indicates that the act attributed to Narek Sargsyan could not have been committed by him, is the forensic examination results. “The death occurred 12-16 hours prior to the autopsy, and the autopsy commenced between 11:00 and 14:00. Therefore, the incident must have occurred between 21:15 and 23:20 on May 4, 2022, when the victim allegedly died from strangulation. We have no facts here because the forensic examination stated that death could have occurred from 23:30 until the morning at 06:00,” the lawyer explained, adding that during the preliminary investigation, it was claimed that this could be a result of medical negligence, as there is factual evidence indicating that the medical professionals were fearing that there may be criminal activity and did not perform their actions properly.

The defense believes that a repeated investigative examination should have been conducted to exclude the issue of medical negligence. “There are many cases where an initial expert conclusion states that death occurs under a certain scenario, but after repeated examinations, a completely different picture is established. This is what worries us, as we find that we are not dealing with the actions of objective investigative bodies because there is only one direction — to do everything to ensure that Narek Sargsyan has a charge,” the lawyer stated. According to his words, there are also other expert evaluations present in the criminal case, all samples have been submitted, and no conclusion has been issued against the defendant.

“DNA has been isolated from both the victim and my client, and the genetic profile indicates that there were no male DNA traces found on the clothing, while specific female DNA was found. As a result, we have submitted a request to clarify which female DNA was isolated during the incident; we received a rejection. However, in the case materials, we see operational-investigative actions ordered to establish the sources of this female DNA on specific items. It appears that we have suspicions, which must be interpreted exclusively in favor of the defendant,” he said. We have evidence that at first, when Narek Sargsyan left, the victim was alive, but the second time when he returned to the scene, there is one person seen leaving the building, but they cannot assert it because there is no identification regarding Narek, and there is also evidence that Narek Sargsyan's antennas are in a completely different location, meaning that the cameras do not show Narek,” the lawyer announced, adding that during the preliminary investigation, it was asserted that another person was present at the scene, and they requested the seizure and review of the basement surveillance cameras, but nothing has been done in that regard. “Throughout the entire criminal process, there are testimonies solely from interested parties; we have one independent testimony, which is exculpatory, and we have testimonies that are false. Concerning interested parties, these are testimonies from relatives that do not substantiate anything about the incident, they only refer to alleged beatings, for which a separate case is being pursued. Regarding the circulating rumors that at the time of the incident, Narek Sargsyan was under the influence of drugs, the defense assured that this has been denied. According to the expert conclusions, there were no traces of drugs found in blood, urine, and hair samples. “This alone is enough to move beyond the level of mere gossip and to approach the issue seriously, understanding that the individual, obviously innocent, is in custody,” the lawyer emphasized.

It should be noted that a preliminary court session is scheduled for May 3, during which the issue regarding whether to continue the detention of Narek Sargsyan or apply a non-custodial preventive measure will be discussed. The defense is concerned that Narek Sargsyan, who has been in custody for a year now, cannot even visit his child and, moreover, there is a conclusion from a psychologist indicating that due to the severing of Narek Sargsyan's connection with his child, he has developed psychological issues, and elements of torture are present in the circumstances.