Defense Requests Confrontational Examination in the Case of Valodya Grigoryan's Murder

On January 23, during the investigation into the murder of Parakar community leader Valodya Grigoryan, the defense attorney Vahan Hovhannisyan, representing the accused Narek Ohanian, stated that the public prosecutor Shahbazyan, who acted as the supervising prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, has not been impartial in uncovering the truth of the case.

According to the defense, the prosecuting body has failed to ensure a comprehensive, complete, and objective investigation, and the inquiry has been conducted in an incomprehensibly hasty and rushed manner. The accusatory conclusion was composed and approved without necessary examination.

He pointed out that the case has significant public resonance, with various public and political circles discussing possible scenarios regarding the murder, including the possibility of it being ordered, the non-identification of the masterminds, and connections between the murder and Grigoryan's official position or political activities.

Hovhannisyan noted that to clarify the existence or absence of these scenarios, a multifaceted investigation should have been conducted. However, no alternative scenario has been proposed within the framework of the proceedings, as no corresponding investigative or evidential actions have been taken, nor were any procedural decisions made.

The defense attorney emphasized that from the very beginning, the prosecuting body has only put forward one scenario—murder driven by revenge, identifying two guilty parties and conducting the entire investigation solely within that framework.

According to him, the supervising prosecutor has also not issued any orders to ensure the comprehensiveness of the investigation. Hovhannisyan stated that even at the stage when the motive and perpetrator of the murder had not been clarified, the vendetta theory was put forward without verifying factual grounds.

The defense also requested to conduct a confrontational examination between Narek Ohanian and another accused, Gevorg Harutyunyan, noting that there are significant contradictions in their testimonies, particularly regarding the acquisition of a gasoline can and their presence in the yard of a half-built house.

He mentioned that the request for the confrontation was rejected on the grounds that new factual information could arise during the confrontation, which could refute Narek Ohanian's guilt and lead to the cessation of criminal prosecution.