The parliamentary groups of the Heritage Party, the Armenian National Congress (ANC) and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) drew up 9 questions regarding the murder of Major Vahe Avetyan, the head of a department at the Central Military Hospital, the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, as a result of a savage reprisal at Harsnakar Restaurant and sent them to the Republic of Armenia Attorney’s Office and the Republic of Armenia Cabinet on July 23. The questions were about whether all the participants in the incident at Harsnakar were revealed, whether there were eye-witnesses who had not been questioned yet or who had ordered to beat up Vahe Avetyan and the others, which of the accused had been the most active during the beating etc.
A few days ago, Sona Truzyan, the press secretary of the Republic of Armenia Attorney General, informed www.aravot.am that a response had been sent to the MPs who had signed the list of questions. The Heritage Party was represented by Ruben Hayrapetyan, the leader of the Heritage Party parliamentary group. Therefore, during a conversation with Mr. Hakobyan, www.aravot.am inquired whether they had received responses from the mentioned institutions and whether the answers to the questions, included in the list, were exhaustive. R. Hakobyan replied, “They tried to answer as much as it was possible, but in regard to the main part of the questions, there was a reference to the fact that the investigation into the case was under way, which didn’t allow to give more comprehensive answers to the questions.”
R. Hakobyan informed that they would talk about the content of the answers to the questions in more detail after discussions with the other two parties – the ARF and the ANC – that had submitted the question list, which would take place in the short-run.
In response to our question whether the answers to the questions given by the attorney’s office and the Ministry of Justice contained new data, Mr. Hakobyan stated, “Basically, no. It is just in this case we have an official answer of the competent bodies, which we needed for our future actions. We didn’t pin serious hopes on the response to the question list; we just wanted to find out the real state of affairs. Nothing new has been revealed, I mean, they have put forward what was there. It is just one thing when it is put forward in mass media and a different thing when the Ministry of Justice and the attorney’s office officially respond to MPs.”
Read also
R. Hakobyan informed that they were going to organize public and parliamentary hearings, which he would clarify after discussions with the other two forces. We inquired whether the responses of the Ministry of Justice and the attorney’s office coincided. Mr. Hakobyan replied, “There is a slight difference, but they basically coincide.” We inquired whether the mentioned institutions’ interest in solving the Harsnakar case was noticeable. R. Hakobyan replied, “It will be hard for me to say anything right now, we are watching the case closely. I want to say that this is an opportunity to talk about permissiveness, thousands of illegal actions, murders, which have been committed so far. This is an opportunity for us to fully talk about the phenomenon with the active participation and protection of the society.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
