Story from Lragir.am News:
Published: 16:36:10 – 27/07/2012
Only after two weeks was Garnik Avetyan recognized as Vahe Avetyan’s
successor, the doctor beaten to death in Harsnakar Restaurant. The
head of the investigation group finally invited him to his office, and
he made a testimony in the presence of his advocates.
However, before getting down to the main process the head of the
investigation team Ruben Lazarian created a number of obstacles to
Garnik Avetyan and his advocates. For instance, the latter had to wait
in front of the entrance of the General Investigation Department,
Ruben Lazarian did not meet with them at the appointed hour, did not
answer phone calls, ignoring the sorrow and psychological state of the
Garnik Avetyan’s state of soul interested investigator Avetyan only in
his office when he tried to persuade him for two hours that the
testimony should be postponed because the father of the victim is not
By the way, for about two hours advocates Lousineh Hakobyan and Tigran
Yegoryan had to wait outside because they were not allowed in together
with their constituent. They were invited in when Garnik Avetyan
insisted and declared that he wants his representatives to be involved
immediately, and he is ready to make a testimony immediately.
Lousineh Hakobyan said the purpose is to postpone the involvement of
advocates in the investigation as much as possible. Earlier on July 11
the advocates requested the General Investigation Department to
recognize their constituent as a successor but their application was
refused with the explanation that the request of the authorized
representatives is not substantial ground and the father of the
aggrieved must submit the application personally.
A week ago the advocates reported the actions of the investigating
body but this body does not hurry to answer.
Vahe Avetyan’s murder is investigated by the Police Department for
Cases of Special Importance which is headed by Vahagn Harutyunyan, the
ex-leader of the team investigating March 1. This appointment was not
approved by the public.
Now this case of public interest is against supervised by a person
whom the public does not trust and it would be ingenuous to think that
the investigator acts independently.