YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)–At the recent hearing of the October 27 case–the interrogators asked Karen Hunanian questions about the contradictions in his testimony at the preliminary investigation and at the trial.
In one of the first testimonies given at the preliminary investigation–the defendant said they wanted to frighten the authorities–and that their goal was to save the nation from its inevitable downfall.
However–his proceeding statemen’s testify to the murder of Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian and Parliament Chairman Karen Demirchian as a meticulously planned and organized assassination; and the other victims were unintentionally murdered.
In the testimony given during the preliminary investigation–the defendant took the blame for having killed not only Vazgen Sargsian but also both Karen Demirchian and National Assembly vice-chairman.
However–further evidence proved that the chairman and the vice-chairman were killed by Karen’s brother–Nairi Hunanian. While in another testimony K. Hunanian said that–"in the foyer–my brother said I were to kill the Prime Minister and he–the NA presidium." When asked about the contradictions–the defendant said that–in court–he never insisted on any of the testimonies given at the preliminary investigation. In the evidence given in court–the defendant said that he aimed his machine-gun at the Prime Minister and that Nairi Hunanian did not shoot at the presidium at all.
There are contradictions regarding Nairi Hunanian’s role in the murders as well. In the preliminary investigation testimonies–Nairi Hunanian’s leadership position is obvious–however–in the court testimonies–Karen Hunanian considers himself a co-author and a co-performer of the murders. The defendant answered these apparent contradictions by saying that he didn’t carry out any orders given by his brother or anybody else–"That was nobody’s decision but mine," he announced.
At the hearing defendant Hamlet Stepanian’s defense attorney Aghasi Atabekian said that he resigned from his position because he did not receive his salary in the months from July to November.
The attorney heard the Ministry of Finance give the following answer–"Your clients have shot our Prime Minister down–that’s why we are not going to pay you." The attorney said that the Minister of Finance receives his salary at the expense of tax-payers–including himself–so–he must serve tax-payers–including him. Judge Samvel Uzunian promised to solve that problem–and–in case of urgent necessity–to send an executive letter to the Ministry of Finance for paying him the indebted salary.