The preliminary investigation of the criminal case on the death of soldier Arthur Gasparyan has revealed a sensational document – a forensic conclusion, in which, in fact, the expert stated that it cannot be claimed that Gasparyan committed suicide. According to the examination dated March 20, 2020, which was given to the victim’s representatives with an 8-month delay, the expert notes Arthur Gasparyan’s character traits – sociable, friendly, nice behavior, and analyzes the facts presented by the investigator. He emphasizes the fact that Gasparyan was not self-contained, noting that these features “could not influence his behavior, particularly induce his suicide.” In other words, his character was such that he could not commit suicide.
Let us remind that Arthur Gasparyan’s body, according to the investigative committee, was found on the night of May 4, 2018, near the residency part of the military position called “Bus 3”. There were gunshot wounds to the top of the head and the mouth area. A case was initiated in the Sixth Garrison Investigation Division according to Part 1 of Article 110 of the RA Criminal Code – “Inciting Suicide”.
But, from the very beginning, Arthur’s suicide seemed unlikely. He was a lush, strong boy, serving in the army for about a year and a half, who had passed the difficult period of adjusting to the army. On the evening of the day of his death, he had a telephone conversation with his family members, who were to visit him in a few days. So, the ordinary had no reason to commit suicide.
There are testimonies of soldiers in the criminal case, according to who Gasparyan had a conflict with two servicemen who cursed and humiliated him. Human rights activist Ruben Martirosyan, representing Arthur Gasparyan’s family, is convinced that these testimonies were obtained by force.
“The expert does not see any causal link that prompted Gasparyan to commit suicide. There is no reason for a soldier to commit suicide. In other words, the expert indirectly writes that Gasparyan did not have a reason for committing suicide,” says Ruben Martirosyan.
With persistent demands, the aggrieved party managed to conduct several examinations during the two and a half years of the investigation, which prove that Gasparyan was killed.
Mechanical injuries were found on his long-sleeved shirt, winter pants, which testify that A. Gasparyan was subjected to violence before his death.
According to the forensic-medical complex examination of his clothes, numerous traces of brown ointment were found on them. The legal successor of the victim, lawyer of Journalists for Human Rights organization Khanum Mkrtchyan told Forrights.am:
“The traces show that the incident did not take place in the service area, as the investigating bodies try to persuade, but that after the murder the body was dragged there from the scene of crime to make the impression as if A. Gasparyan was in service. Meanwhile, Gasparyan did not perform his official duties at the time of his death. This is clear from the fact that traces were found only on Gasparyan’s underwear, on long and short sleeved shirts, vest, and were not found on Gasparyan’s military jacket, winter jacket or trousers. In other words, it was obvious that Gasparyan was not on duty at the time of the murder, because people do not perform official duties in their underwear.”
Another forensic examination revealed that the injuries were caused while he was alive.
The examination of the “RPK-74” type gun showed that only one shot could be fired with one push of the trigger from it. To make the next shot, one must release the trigger and press it again.
“It is obvious that Artur Gasparyan could not have received two gunshot wounds with one shot. In other words, the false version of suicide was refuted by the above-mentioned expert conclusions.
“Ignoring this undeniable fact, the preliminary investigation body continues to investigate this criminal case under the article of inciting suicide. Whereas, immediately after receiving these expert conclusions, it was obliged to re-qualify the case under Article 104 of the Criminal Code, that is, with the features of murder,” says Khanum Mkrtchyan.