THE MURDER OF HRACH MURADYAN AND ITS AFTERMATH: A DETAILED REPORT
By Samson Martirosyan // August 8, 2013
(The Armenian Weekly)-The village of Proshyan (also spelled Broshyan),
situated in Kotayk province, just outside of Yerevan, has a population
of about 5,000 people. The Proshyan Brandy Factory, which is famous
for the high-quality grapes and apricots it uses, is right in the
village center. The villagers of Proshyan lived a relatively quiet
life up until four months ago, when an unknown assailant gunned down
their mayor.
1×1.trans The Murder of Hrach Muradyan and its Aftermath: A Detailed
Report
Hrach Muradyan On April 2, Hrach Muradyan, 50, was shot dead. His body
was found at 9 a.m. in front of the municipality building. The bullet
had hit him straight in the head, leaving no chance for survival.
Born to a repatriate family from Syria, Muradyan was an active member
of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and had been re-elected
mayor of Proshyan three terms since 2005. Muradyan was also a Karabagh
War veteran and one of the founders of the Shushi Special Unit, and
was awarded the Artshakh Martakan Khach. He was married, and had two
sons and two daughters.
Muradyan’s murder was a real shock not only for Proshyan, but for
the entire country. On April 4, a candlelight vigil was held near
Yerevan’s Opera House. Many high-ranking members of the ARF, as well
as leaders of the Sardarabat movement and other civil activists,
were present that day. Many came with posters, condemning his death.
The ARF immediately qualified the murder as a politically driven,
intentional assassination, and said it was evidence that no one’s
security was guaranteed. The Armenian National Congress (ANC) also
condemned the murder and stressed the motive was clearly political–a
consequence of the environment created by a corrupt and autocratic
system. Jirayr Sefilyan, the leader of Sardarapat movement, said
the murder was the result of the criminal mindset and atmosphere of
impunity that surrounds the ruling elite. Meanwhile, Heritage Party
leader Raffi Hovhannisian, who was present at Muradyan’s funeral,
said it was a blow to Armenia’s statehood, to the Armenian nation,
and to every Armenian.
According to the ARF and many Proshyan villagers, during Muradyan’s
tenure tensions were high between the ARF and the ruling Republican
Party (RPA). Muradyan was well respected and had managed to gain the
trust of the majority of the population, allowing him to win local
elections and beat RPA candidates time and again. In September 2012,
his rival was RPA member Artur Muradyan. When Hrach Muradyan won the
elections, the situation deteriorated. The village became divided into
two camps: those who affiliated themselves with the RPA, and those
(the majority of the population) who supported Hrach Muradyan. Even
during Muradyan’s post-election celebration party, a skirmish broke
out between his loyalists and a group of men who were reportedly
RPA supporters.
The mayor and his family realized they were in harm’s way–even before
2012. His family says that in 2010, a hay stack was deliberately
set aflame in an attempt to burn down their farm. Firemen did later
confirm that the fire was an act of arson. In 2010, another grave
incident shook the mayor when someone attempted to kidnap his nephew.
That attempt ended in a scuffle. According to Melanya Arustamyan,
Muradyan’s family lawyer, when the mayor emerged from his residence
following the kidnapping attempt, someone shot at his nephew and his
car. The mayor himself later faced charges following speculation that
he had shot at his own car as an act of provocation.
While the ARF, and many other political actors, qualified Muradyan’s
murder as a politically driven assassination, it was apparent that
the accusations and hints indirectly pointed at the RPA. That party
did not issue an official statement; when the media urged some of
its representatives to react, they denied any involvement.
The story of this murder is marked with ambiguous events. And the
greater the controversy it caused, the greater the bewilderment and
anger among the people.
On April 4, police announced that they had detained the Petrosyan
brothers–Arthur, 33, and Arayik, 31–after interrogating dozens
of people and searching several houses. The next day, news spread
that Arayik Petrosyan faced charges and criminal proceedings under
Articles 104, 2.2 (murder of the person of close relative of the
latter, due to service and public duty of the person) and 235, 1
(illegal procurement, transportation, keeping or carrying of weapons,
explosives or explosive devices, except smoothbore long-barrel hunting
guns, ammunition) of Armenia’s criminal code. The case was placed
under the jurisdiction of the Chief Investigation Department of the
Police for Particularly Important Cases. A day later, the Kentron,
Norq-Marash Court of First Instance ordered Arayik’s arrest.
As the investigation continued, police presented their main piece
of evidence: traces of metallic antimony (a metalloid used in the
production of bullets) on Petrosyan’s sleeves and face, and in the car
he had used on the day of the murder. Once such a bullet is fired,
it leaves behind a particular trace. This remains the main evidence
against Petrosyan.
Petrosyan’s lawyer, Givi Hovhannisyan, lodged a complaint with the
Court of Appeals asking to review the decision to arrest Petrosyan.
Hovhannisyan also repeatedly claimed that the investigation was
carried out in an inappropriate manner: Traces of antimony cannot be
considered hard evidence against his client, he argued, as the police
had not proven that they had come from a gunshot. He also said that the
expiration date of the antimony had not been noted in the examination.
According to Hovhannisyan, antimony is used not only in bullet
production, but also in many other household chemicals, and is even
found in nature. He also argued that whereas a bullet leaves behind
traces of other chemicals, the examination report had only mentioned
antimony. Petrosyan’s wife later testified that he had been working
on his car for several days before the murder–which could result in
traces of antimony.
The police have another clue: Petrosyan was seen driving a white Lada
Niva the day of the crime, the same type of car that was spotted near
the murder scene. Hovhannisyan, however, argues that Petrosyan’s
car was broken down and that he had to borrow his friend’s car,
a white Niva.
Petrosyan’s wife testified that on the day of the murder, her husband
took their children to school at around 8:20 a.m., came back at 8:30
a.m., and stayed home until about 9:20 a.m., when he left to go to
work. She claims her neighbors saw him.
There are other curious factors as well. Neither the murder weapon,
nor the cartridge case have been found. When police searched the
Petrosyan brothers’ houses, they found a hunting gun, but subsequent
examination proved that the bullet had come from a different gun.
Also, nobody seems to have heard the sound of a gunshot, hinting at
the use of a silencer. Many argue that if Muradyan was the victim of
a drive-by shooting, the car involved would have been spotted as it
drove away. Yet, nobody saw a car, except for the white Niva that was
later spotted by police in the area. If Muradyan was shot in the head
from a distance, then the killer was likely a professional hit-man.
Petrosyan doesn’t fit the bill, since he is not a professional
shooter, he physically cannot be placed at the murder scene, and has
no witnesses against him.
There are also numerous accounts that describe Petrosyan and Muradyan
as having good relations. In fact, Arayik Petrosyan could enter the
mayor’s office without registering in advance. Many have said that
there were no conflicts between the two.
As mentioned, the police also detained Arayik’s brother Artak, later
released him, and detained him again. He is currently in custody.
Artak is facing charges of hooliganism. According to police, he was
present at the September 2012 skirmish that followed Muradyan’s
election victory. The case was closed over the absence of corpus
delicti, but the prosecutor’s office re-launched it. Artak Petrosyan
denies he was there. The case is now under the jurisdiction of the
Chief Department of Investigation, even though cases of hooliganism
are, as a rule, not investigated by this department. Both family
members and the lawyer insist that this was done deliberately to
create an artificial link between the 2012 event and the 2013 murder,
and to then prove that a confrontation between the Petrosyans and
Muradyan had started in September 2012.
On April 17, the brothers’ father wrote an open letter to President
Serge Sarkisian, Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepyan, and Chief of
Police Vova Gasparyan. In his letter, he thoroughly explained what
had transpired and demanded that the investigation be placed under
their direct control. He asked that they do everything to guarantee
maximum transparency and to ensure that law enforcement bodies use
the law to its fullest to solve this case as soon as possible and
relieve his family from anguish.
On April 18, the day of Arayik Petrosyan’s arrest hearing and the
decision by the Court of Appeals, many demonstrated in Proshyan in
support of the brothers. People held posters that read, “Arayik is
not guilty,” and “Set them free.” The protesters marched from Proshyan
to the Court of Appeals, where they waited for the court’s decision.
The Court of Appeals turned down Hovhannisyan’s demands, and upheld
the previous decision of Kentron, Norq-Marash Court of First Instance
to arrest Petrosyan. His wife and lawyer said they are determined
to fight until they clear his name, and are even willing to appeal
to the European Court of Human Rights if they are unable to reach
justice in the Armenian courts.
Two months later, at the end of May, Kentron, Norq-Marash Court of
First Instance passed a decision to prolong Petrosyan’s arrest for
two more months, at the request of law enforcement bodies. No new
evidence was presented; his arrest was again based on the previous
evidence of antimony traces on his body and in his car. This caused
another wave of anger and rage among many. Hovhannisyan announced
that for two months Arayik had not been interrogated.
Two ARF Parliamentary members (MPs), Armen Rustamyan and Aghvan
Vardanyan, met with police chief Vova Gasparyan to discuss the murder
case and any developments. Gasparyan said he would do everything
within his means to ensure that justice is reached and the case is
solved. Some, however, believe the opposite to be true; to them, it
seems the police and the courts are intent on finding the brothers
guilty.
Immediately after the meeting between the police chief and the ARF
representatives, the police announced that they would give a reward
of $5,000 to any person who could offer significant information
regarding the case. The police assured the public that they would
protect the identity of the informer. So far, however, no one has
responded to their call. Some fear that sooner or later, someone might
fabricate information to claim the promised sum, further complicating
the investigation.
The brothers’ lawyer has revealed that a new investigation is
currently underway, giving cause to doubt the results from the first
one. Petrosyan’s arrest term expires in August, and while the findings
from the first investigation were made available after only a day,
it has been more than two weeks since second investigation ended. Law
enforcement may apply to the court to prolong Petrosyan’s term.
With the support of the ARF and its MP, Aghvan Vardanyan, the “Demand
Justice for Hrach Muradyan” civic movement was created. The main aim
of this movement is to achieve justice, and to ensure that the case
receives broad coverage by the mainstream media so that the public
is informed of any further developments.
Special elections for a new mayor were held in Proshyan on July 14.
Three candidates vied for the position: Aleksan Aleksanyan,
non-partisan; Vova Sahakyan, ARF affiliated; and Artur Muradyan,
an RPA member. The ARF did not officially back Sahakyan, who was
the main opposition runner against the RPA candidate. In a tough
competition, the RPA’s Artur Muradyan was elected mayor. According
to the official election results, he received 1,371 votes against
Sahakyan’s 1,241 votes. This election, as with any other election in
Armenia, was carried out in an extremely tense environment. The RPA
reportedly bribed voters and enlisted the help of law enforcement to
secure a win. Both Aleksan Aleksanyan and Vova Sahakyan rejected the
election results.
Many now view Artur Muradyan’s victory as the RPA’s ultimate
objective–a vicious, power-grabbing policy that led to Muradyan’s
murder and the Petrosyan brothers’ victimization. From the moment
Artur Muradyan was elected into office, the village of Proshyan
belonged to the RPA. No one remains to challenge its supremacy.
Just days after the new elections, protesters took to the streets in
Proshyan to rail against the arrest and detention of the Petrosyan
brothers. They submitted a petition with 980 signatures to the
prosecutor general, Aghvan Hovsepyan, demanding that the case be
revived, the investigation accelerated, and transparency assured.
Meanwhile, Arayik Petrosyan’s wife has threatened self-immolation
if her husband is found guilty. That potential verdict, she said,
would leave their four children without paternal care, and would
signify the failure of justice in the country.
In the days following Artur Muradyan’s election, 13 local officials
resigned in protest. The new mayor, however, did not view this as a
problem; as he said, the staff was replaceable. Is there anyone who
doubts it? Is there anyone who expected a proper, decent reaction?
Surely not, as it is naive to expect a different reaction from a
member of the ruling elite.
Unfortunately, the story of this murder and what followed are
indicative of the “democratic” processes in place in Armenia. Where
there is political will, there is little that stands in the way of
its implementation, regardless of the consequences. The executive
and judicial branches of power can–and have–easily become tools in
the hands of the powerful. The system of checks and balances seems
to have been completely forgotten. Law enforcement officials have
proven to be mere puppets in a big theatre. And those individuals who
oppose the system of impunity are faced with terrible consequences,
and no practical guarantees of their fundamental rights.
Sometimes the system is deliberately managed only semi-repressively,
as opposed to total repression, thereby giving the semblance of
progress where there is none. Most of the time, like in the case
of Hrach Muradyan’s murder, the system operates in a perfectly
repressive manner, with all necessary resources directed against the
very existence of the opposition.
The Armenian Weekly will continue following this case very closely
to see if it is carried out fairly and in a way that promotes justice.
***
Two months after the murder, an unknown person(s) defiled a monument
at the gravesite of slain mayor Hrach Muradyan and Proshyan’s many
other war veterans. The words “Spectacle Is Over” (Õ~@Õ¡Õ¶Õ¤Õ¥Õ½Õ¨
Õ~NÕ¥O~@Õ”Õ¡O~AÕ¡Õ® Õ§) were written across the monument. The type of
paint used made it impossible to erase the graffiti. Villagers found
those words on the 40th day (O~DÕ¡Õ¼Õ¡Õ½Õ¸O~BÕ¶O~D) after Muradyan’s
deathâ~@¤Muradyan’s family, along with many others, believe this was
done by the real culprits, as their way of celebrating their victory.
This detailed report was prepared by Samson Martirosyan, The Armenian
Weekly’s correspondent in Gyumri.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/08/08/the-murder-of-hrach-muradyan-and-its-aftermath-a-detailed-report/