Report on The Circumstances of the Death of Private Tigran Abgaryan

In line with point 8.1 of the PACE 1677 Resolution on the “Situation of Democratic Institutions in 
Armenia”, members of the Fact-Finding Group (FFG) established upon the Presidential Order of
October 23, 2008, Andranik Kocharyan and Seda Safaryan (further referred to as “ FFG reporting
members”) have decided to present to the RA National Assembly Ad Hoc Committee the findings of
the examination of the circumstances of the death of Tigran Abgaryan, a private of Regiment No.1033
of the RA Police troops, who was shot on March 1, 2008, and died on April 11, 2008.
The Fact-Finding Group has examined materials of the criminal cases started with regard to the events
of March 1, received explanations from the former Chief of Staff of the RA Police Troops,
Commander of the 1033 Regiment of the RA Police Troops, Colonel Arsen Galstyan, Deputy
Commander of 1033 Regiment of the RA Police Troops, Lieutenant Colonel Armen Antonyan, Staff
Commander of the Second Battalion of the RA Police Troops, Major Gevorg Sevoyan, Commander of
the platoon of the 1033 Regiment of the RA Police Troops, Lieutenant Gor Vahramyan, Commander
of the Second platoon of the Second Battalion of the RA Police Troops, Captain Grigor Shahinyan,
private of the same platoon, Arthur Arabyan.
Thus, the Fact-Finding Group has established that on March 1, 2008, at 10 pm, Tigran Abgaryan,
diagnosed with perforating gunshot wound of the neck, was transported by Ambulance to No. 1
Clinical Hospital of Heratsi Medical University. After having been shown first medical aid Tigran
Abgaryan was transferred to the neurosurgical department of “Erebuni” Medical Center. On 2 March
2008, at 4 pm, T. Abgaryan was transferred from “Erebuni” medical Center to “Mikayelyan Surgical
Institute” CJSC, where he died on April 11 at 8 pm.
On March 3, 2008, by the decision of A. Yeremyan, senior investigator of Cases of Special Importance
(CSI) of the Special Investigation Service (SIS), forensic medical examination was performed by the
experts of the Forensic Medical Research Center (FMRC) of the RA Ministry of Health (MH).
On March 8 2008, the CSI SIS senior investigator A. Yeremyan ordered to confiscate the clothes of
Tigran Abgaryan. The clothes were obtained from the headquarters of Regiment 1033 of the RA Police
troops, where the Staff Commander of the Second Battalion, Major Gevorg Sevoyan presented one
winter jacket and claimed that it belonged to Tigran Abgaryan.
On March 17 2008, senior investigator of the CSI SIS A. Yeremyan ordered to perform forensic trace
examination on Abgarian’s jacket, which was conducted by the experts of Forensic Medical Research
Center of the RA Ministry of Health. Page 2

2
The CSI SIS senior investigator A. Yeremyan ordered to perform a forensic medical examination of
Tigran Abgarian’s body on April 11, 2008. The examination was conducted by an expert of forensic
medicine, Mr. G. Harutiunyan.
A. Examination of the jacket
According to the protocol on jacket examination the collar of the jacket is from artificial fur and is
buttoned to the main collar with four black buttons. On the outside part of the collar, at a distance of
16 cm left from the right side of the main collar and at 2 cm distance upward from the collar stitches
there is a 2.5x0.3 cm slit that looks like a bullet hole covered with blood resembling stains. 3.5 cm
upward from the injured place there is a small hole, and another small hole, 5 cm upward from the
lower hole. The fur is also covered with blood resembling stains. No other bullet holes were found on
the jacket.
Registered shortcomings
The FFG reporting members have thus disclosed that the investigator didn’t go the hospital to
immediately collect Tigran Abgaryan’s clothes. Moreover, the investigator didn’t take swabs from the
injuries, nostrils, ears and face area of Tigran Abgaryan, nor did he seek any assistance from the
physician in charge to find out whether residual traces of a gunshot were present.
Despite the obvious fact that Tigran Abgaryan sustained a gunshot wound from the front, in his report
the investigator didn’t mention whether there were blood resembling or burn signs on the front side of
the jacket in the parts corresponding to the sustained wounds. The investigator didn’t mention the
placement of the blood resembling stains, their size, nor the sizes of the two small holes on the collar.
While studying the protocol of the examination the following questions arise:
a) Why did the investigator confiscate the jacket as late as March 8 and not on the day of the
incident?
b) How did Tigran Abgaryan’s winter jacket find its way to the Regiment headquarters?
c) Where are other clothes he wore on the day of the incident: bulletproof vest, tunic and sleeveless
shirt?
d) Why weren’t the above-mentioned clothes of T. Abgaryan seized and examined?
e) Why was there no examination conducted in that regard?
B. Forensic Trace Examination of the Jacket
On March 17, 2008, the CSI SIS senior investigator A. Yeremyan ordered to perform forensic gunshot
trace examination on the jacket. The analysis of the results of the forensic gunshot trace examination
raised the following questions among the reporter members of the FFG:
a) Why did the investigator order forensic gunshot trace examination and not forensic ballistic
examination of Tigran Abgaryan’ jacket, given the fact that it was a gunshot wound?Page 3

3
b) Why didn’t the investigator demand examination of the jacket to find out whether traces of a
gunshot were present, which would have made it possible to determine the shooting distance?
c) Why was the forensic examination ordered as late as on March 17?
According to Conclusion No. 09330802 of forensic trace, forensic ballistic, forensic explosive-
technical and chemical complex examination (dated June 23, 2008): on the back side of the collar at
2.5 cm back of the collar stitches and 17 cm left from the right free edge of the collar there is a 19x9
mm trace of perforating injury of irregular shape. The described injury trace extends to the jacket
collar and fur collar in two-by- three contiguous and perforating injury marks of irregular shape. The
19x9 mm dimension injury mark is described asuneven, the fibers are damaged and have disheveled
edges. They are thinned and directed outside, proving that it is “exit” injury.
The expert has mentioned in the “Conclusion” that the described injury marks on the jacket are the
result of a gunshot by copper containing bullet, fired at least once from the front-to-back direction.
The described gunshot wound marks on the jacket point to “exit” injury.
Registered shortcomings
The expert didn’t mention the position, distance and dimensions of the two by three contiguous and
perforating injuries in relation to the main injury. Examined separately, the two by three contiguous
and perforating injuries were superficially described as mere extension of the main injury without any
reasonable explanation. There was no clarity as to the number of the injuries either. The conclusion of
the examination suggests that there is one 19x9 mm injury mark on the collar of the jacket and two by
three other traces of contiguous and perforating injuries, in other words, seven injuries in total.
However, the expert didn’t give any coherent explanation about that, despite the fact that the
investigator had described the distance of those injuries from the main injury during the examination of
the jacket.
When describing the injury marks as “exit holes”, the expert has tried to find the traces of gunpowder
soot, particles of half-burnt gunpowder, metalized traces of oil and firing residues. Such examination is
conducted to confirm the fact of point-blank shooting.
The expert has used diffuse-contact method due to which traces of low intensity of copper
metallization were found on the inside surface of the injuries on the collar of the winter jacket. The
expert hasn’t found traces of metalized copper on the outside surface. The reporting members of the
FFG consider it necessary to emphasize that the expert, while having confirmed the presence of
copper, refrained from making comments or conclusions. It is common knowledge, that during point-
blank fire the half-burnt particles of gunpowder, traces of gunpowder soot, oil and residues of copper
and antimonite metallization are present in the wound canal and near the “exit hole”.
It is noteworthy that the examination was suspended on March 19, 2008, since the expert solicited the
forensic medical examination conclusion of Tigran Abgaryan’s body from the investigator. In fact,
while studying the Conclusion of forensic medical examination of Tigran Abgaryan’s body, being
aware that the gunshot “entry” hole was from the front, the expert did nothing to find the traces of
gunpowder soot, particles of half-burnt gunpowder, metallization traces of oil and gunshot residues on Page 4

4
the front side of the jacket, in the area adjacent to the gunshot “entry” injury. Had he done that, it
would have helped to assess and measure the distance from which the gunshot was fired.
The Conclusion fails to present any findings about the firing distance, whereas one of the principal
objectives of the forensic ballistic examination is the assessment of that distance. In the Conclusion the
expert stopped short of mentioning the number, sizes and placement of the injury marks on the jacket
collar, though the presence of one 19x9 mm size injury mark and of two by three contiguous and
perforating traces of injuries has been confirmed. While avoiding to describe the real state of affairs,
the expert limited himself only to mentioning that the described injuries are gunshot wounds (i.e.
admitting that there is more than one gunshot injury) and that at least one shooting took place (thus
accepting the fact of more than one gunshots). Nevertheless, the forensic ballistic experts have
mentioned, that “the described gunshot injury marks on the jacket constitute “exit” injury”. It is
logical to ask: how is it possible to consider several gunshot marks as one “exit” injury?
The materials of the case testify to the fact that the investigator didn’t react to the vagueness,
contradictions and shortcomings of the Conclusion and didn’t ask the experts for additional
clarifications.
C. Forensic Medical Examination of the Body.
According to Conclusion # 392 of the forensic medical examination of the body, dated 22 May 2008,
Tigran Abgaryan was admitted to the hospital with the following medical record: 3x3 cm size gunshot
wound on the right side of frontal surface of the neck of a question mark shape, plugged “exit hole” on
the back side of vertebral cavity. There is a 12 cm length postsurgical sutured wound on the right side
of frontal neck surface, along the clavipectoral muscle anterior edge.
The expert recorded the following injuries on the body:
• Vertical pink 4.5 cm long scar of linear shape in the left forehead back area.
• Similar scars in the left temple area, vertical, 4.0 cm long, and 10.0 cm length at the left frontal
neck area surface.
• 5.0 cm long scar along the middle line of the frontal surface of the neck, 2 cm lower the
laryngeal prominence (according to the medical history the mentioned scar corresponds to the
location of the “entry hole” and is located at 147-153 cm height from foot),
• 4.0 cm long scar in the left under-collarbone zone, parallel to the collar bone.
• 10.0 cm long scar on the right frontal neck area surface, originating from the angle of the jaw to
the area up to the collar bone,
• 6.5 cm long vertical scar on the frontal anterior wall of the abdomen.
• 8.0 cm long vertical scar on the right side at the level of the hip bone vertex. Page 5

5
• 1 cm long two scars on the right and one scar on the left sides of the groin area.
• A scar with smooth edges originating on the frontal surface of the neck, in the zone under the
laryngeal prominence and progressing to respiratory tract (trachea).
• In the hind head area there are four scars of round shape covered with brown crust, located
symmetrically to each other at four angles of a square. They are within 2.0x1.0 cm to 3.0x2.0
cm dimensions.
• On the lower tertiary part of the rear surface of the right half of the neck there is a vertical,
2.0x0.5 dimension wound with rough edges with sterile bandage put inside. After the removal
of the bandage and checking of the wound it became clear that the wound canal progressed to
the spine (according to the medical record the above- mentioned wound corresponds to the
“exit” wound) and is located at 152 cm height from foot.
• There is a 1.5x1.0 cm dimension dried area covered with light brown thin crust on the edge of
the nose.
• On the rear surface of the chest under shoulder blade bone area, in the right and left zones of
the feet there are 2,0x2,5 cm 3,0x2,0 cm dimension brown wounded surfaces covered with
humid substance (decubitus).
In the summary of the Conclusion it is written:
*Tigran Abgaryan died as a result of the disorder of the vital functions of the brain caused by a
perforating gunshot wound to the neck. The above mentioned gunshot wound did not cause the
immediate death, but the effects of the shot from a firearm loaded with bullets are in direct connection
with the cause of death.
*While still alive the deceased suffered from the following: post traumatic obstructive hydrocephaly,
condition after the insertion of peritoneal shunt, condition after the insertion of tracheostome, bilateral
purulent aspiration pneumonia. The above-mentioned conditions are the complications of the main
injury, the gunshot wound to the neck, and are directly related to the cause of death.
*Based on the location of the gunshot wound described in the medical record, “entry hole” on the
right frontal surface of the neck and “exit hole” on the right backside surface of the neck, we can
conclude that the shot was fired from front to back, and from left to right in relation to the x axis of the
body. However, this issue can be further clarified on the basis of the gun-shot trace examination of
Abgarian’s clothes.
*According to the medical record the shot was fired from the distance beyond the range that would
have allowed speaking about additional factors affecting shooting from this type of weapon. However,
this issue can also be further clarified on the basis of the gun-shot trace examination of Abgarian’s
clothes. Comprehensive examination of this issue can fill the remaining gaps. Page 6

6
Registered shortcomings / contradictions.
Reporting members of the FFG consider that the expert in charge has failed to fulfill his task as he
didn’t make any reference to other injuries in his conclusions, didn’t mention when and how they were
sustained.
It is unclear why the expert in forensic medicine didn’t take samples of cutaneous covering from the
area surrounding the gunshot wound entry hole for forensic tissue examination and didn’t instruct his
personnel to carry out an appropriate examination which would have made it possible to establish the
presence of gunshot residue and thus to assess the shooting distance. The same expert took tissue
samples from different internals of the body of the victim (brain -2, heart-2, liver-1, lung-5, kidney-2,
spleen-1, abdominal salivary-1, adrenal gland-2) for forensic examination department archive. Instead,
the expert in forensic medicine, making reference to the medical record only, established that “the
shot was fired from distance beyond the range that would have allowed speaking of additional factors
affecting the shooting from this type of weapon” without mentioning on the basis of what medical data
he came to such conclusion.
It is not understandable if doctors practicing in regular hospital were able to perform and if they have
performed actions that were the responsibility of the forensic medical expert. At the same time the
forensic medical expert reported that the question of presence of additional gunshot residue could be
further clarified only on the basis of gun-wound trace examination of private Abgarian’s clothes.
The following question arises: if the forensic medical expert is not certain about his conclusion and
suggests that the investigator should start comprehensive forensic medical and forensic trace
examination to assess the shooting distance, why would he include the conclusion on the “ shooting
distance” into his report, especially when it is based on the existing medical record? Furthermore, how
could one perform comprehensive examination without forensic tissue examination of cutaneous
covering and wound canal?
It is not understandable why forensic medical expert didn’t make reference to the size of the gunshot
wound “entry hole” and didn’t mention the firing distance from which a shot could cause a 5 cm long
“entry hole” discovered in the course of the external examination of the body. FFG reporting members
state that after the external examination of the body by the forensic medical expert, cutaneous covering
from the area surrounding the gunshot wound “entry hole” was not described at all, nor was it
mentioned if there were any additional factors characterizing the shot. It is common knowledge, that
the firing distance can be established based on the size of the “entry hole”. This matter is clearly
described in different specialized literature sources. Doctor of Medicine, Professor Vyacheslav
POPOV, in Chapter 12 of manual “Forensic medicine” published in 2006, makes the following
reference to gunshot wounds:
Not close distance – Typical entry gunshot wound – medium size and round shape: External diameter
of abrasion layer marginal zone approximately equals the caliber of the bullet. Exit wounds usually
are not characterized by the abrasion layer and metal residue marginal zones. Defect in the zone of
exit wound is either missing or has cone shape with the top directed outside (pages 171-172).
“Close distance: point-blank fire – In case of point-blank fire at the right angle to the surface of the
wounded area of the body, the main mass of gunpowder gas ejecting from the gun tube pierces the skin Page 7

7
acting compactly and expands in all directions from the initial zone of wound canal, exfoliates the skin
and presses it with force to the gun muzzle. Point-blank fire causes substantive damage to the skin,
which, exceeds in size the caliber of the bullet (pages 175-176) as a consequence of the piercing force
of gunpowder gas,.
Wounds by machine-gun fire burst – Close distance point-blank fire can result in occurrence of
connected (coupled or tripled) wounds (page 178).
D) Clarification of the Circumstances of the Incident
When invited to the FFG sitting Lieutenant Gor Vahramyan, Squad Commander of the 1033 Regiment
of the RA Police Troops stated with regard to the shooting of private Tigran Abgaryan that during the
withdrawal from the location by the “Fish store” Tigran Abgaryan retreated with the Police Troops. At
about 11-11.30 pm, while retreating they positioned by a 4-storey building at the beginning of Leo
street. They moved back for 5-10 meters from the Leo Street when private Artyom Khachatryan
approached and said that Tigran Abgaryan “was shot”. He learned from Artyom Khachatryan that
Tigran Abgaryan “was shot” at the beginning of the Leo Street, nearby the first archway. Artyom
Khachatryan, together with other servicemen, brought him to the Policlinic located on the Leo Street.
They broke the gates and took him inside the Policlinic. All commanders, including Commander of the
RA Police Troops, General Grigor Grigoryan, were there. Gor Vahramyan saw Tigran Abgaryan bleed
from mouth and throat. The Regiment’s doctor was showing him first medical aid. At that moment the
Ambulance approached and transported private Abgaryan to a hospital. Gor Vahramyan stated that so
far it was only once that he was called to testify, and he didn’t remember if the investigator had asked
him about the incident with Tigran Abgaryan or not.
When invited to the FFG the Chief of Staff the Second Battalion of the RA Police Troops (Regiment
1033), Major Gevorg Sevoyan stated that on the day of the incident servicemen were in winter
uniform, they were carrying bulletproof jackets, helmets and shields. He didn’t know under what
circumstances and where Tigran Abgaryan was shot and wounded. According to the information he
received, Tigran Abgaryan was wounded by a gunshot at the intersection of Paronyan and Leo streets,
probably in the vicinity of “Svin” shop. He learned about the shooting when they entered Leo Street.
However, he didn’t ask soldiers where and how the incident took place. Regarding the confiscation of
Tigran Abgaryan’s military clothing from the Staff headquarters by the investigator, he responded that
he didn’t remember anything about it. After being familiarized with the protocol of confiscation he
stated that he was not aware about Tigran Abgaryan’s military clothing and could not tell how it had
been brought to the Regiment and where it was kept. He expressed an opinion, that Commander of the
platoon, Captain Shahinyan was the person who possessed all the information regarding the matter. He
was only instructed to hand over the clothing of Tigran Abgaryan to the investigator.
When invited to the FFG sitting, Captain Grigor Shahinyan, Commander of the Second platoon of the
Second battalion of the RA Police Troops (Regiment 1033) stated with regard to the shooting of
Tigran Abgaryan that soldiers of their Regiment were positioned on Leo Street facing the Paronyan
Street (he didn’t remember the time). Lines were positioned nearby “Svin” shop. Tigran Abgaryan was
standing in the middle of the line, i.e. in the middle of Leo Street. Two soldiers approached him and
informed that private Tigran Abgaryan had been wounded. Before he made it there, T. Abgaryan was
moved back for about 5 meters and the Regiment’s doctor was showing him first medical aid. His Page 8

8
bullet-proof vest, which was under his winter jacket, was taken off. The winter jacket itself was not
taken off. Grigor Shahinyan did not see the Commander of the RA Police Troops, Grigor Grigoryan
and the Chief of Staff, Gegham Petrosyan near Tigran Abgaryan. Regarding the fact how the winter
jacket found its way to the Regiment headquarters, he stated that the commander of the Regiment
brought it from “Erebuni” hospital where it had been kept in the platoon’s clothing warehouse, until it
was given to the investigator.
When invited to the FFG sitting Colonel Arsen Galstyan, Commander of the RA Police Troops
(Regiment # 1033) answering the question why private Abgaryan’s jacket was found at the Regiment
headquarters, stated that on 2 March he visited several hospitals. First, he visited Hospital # 1 and
learned that Abgaryan was not there. He then went to Republican Hospital only to find out that
Abgaryan was not there either. Afterwards he went to “Erebuni” Hospital where doctors gave him the
clothes of the wounded servicemen. According to Arsen Galstyan, Tigran Abgaryan’s jacket could
have been among those clothes. Moreover, he sent his subordinates to hospitals to collect the uniforms
of the wounded servicemen which they brought to the Regiment headquarters.
Invited to the FFG Colonel Gegham Petrosyan, former Chief of Staff of the RA Police Troops stated
with regard to the shooting of Tigran Abgaryan that he witnessed the incident with his own eyes:
troops were positioned at about 30 meter distance from the Leo-Paronyan Streets intersection in the
direction of Leo Street, by the building of Hydro Meteorological Center. He saw a civilian coming out
from the corner of the building located at the intersection of Leo and Paronyan streets, who fired from
a machine-gun 2-3 times and one of the shots hit Tigran Abgaryan. Grigor Grigoryan ordered the
sharpshooter to shoot at the legs of that civilian. According to Gegham Petrosyan, Tigran Abgaryan
was taken up the stairs of the Hydro Meteorological Center entrance, and Ambulance was called at
once and he was taken to a hospital. To the request of a FFG member to explain the inconsistencies in
testimonies of different witnesses regarding the locations of the incident and the place where Tigran
Abgaryan was taken, Gegham Petrosyan insisted that he was beside Tigran Abgaryan and saw the
incident first-hand, while the others were not at the spot, hence, were not aware of the details.
Invited to the FFG sitting Lieutenant Colonel Armen Antonyan, Deputy Commander of the RA Police
Troops (Regiment # 1033) stated with regard to the shooting of Tigran Abgaryan that the incident took
place in front of his eyes. Troops were positioned on Leo Street, up from the “Svin” shop. The
wounded private was in the middle of the first line, i.e. in the middle of Leo Street.
Invited to the FFG sitting private Arthur Arabyan (second platoon of the Second Battalion of the RA
Police Troops, Regiment # 1033) stated with regard to the shooting of Tigran Abgaryan that the
incident occurred at about 20 meter distance from “Svin” shop in the direction of Leo Street. Tigran
Abgaryan was standing in the first line, he was in the second. Events were developing on Paronyan
Street. They heard shooting. Tigran Abgaryan bended and fell down. Two soldiers helped him and
carried him back.
Based on the above-mentioned facts regarding the killing of private Tigran Abgaryan (the Second
Battalion of RA Police Troops, Regiment # 1033) the FFG reporting members conclude that:
• In case of shooting from far distance, it would have been impossible to find traces of
metallization around the exit holes that were discovered on the collar of the jacket. However, Page 9

9
ballistic examination discovered traces of low intensity copper metallization around 19x9 mm
injury mark near the two by three contiguous and perforating gunshot marks on the collar of the
jacket.
• While describing some of the gunshot wounds in the summary of their Conclusion, the ballistic
experts tried to disguise the real facts speaking about only one exit wound. At the same time,
they stated in the Conclusion that there was at least one shot, and, in fact, admitted the
existence of more than one shot.
• In the Conclusion the ballistic experts were not clear on the number of gunshot wounds, their
location against each other, and their dimensions, despite the fact that in the descriptive part of
the report they mentioned different gunshot wounds.
• The ballistic experts did not examine the front part area of Tigran Abgaryan’s winter jacket
corresponding to the “entry hole” on the body, thus failing to determine the shooting distance.
Consequently, the reporters register that in the summary of the Conclusion there is no
mentioning on the shooting distance.
• The dimensions of the “entry hole” (5cm long) on the body of Tigran Abgaryan several times
exceeded the size of the bullet which is typical of point-blank fire.
• There is one “entry hole” on the front part of the neck of the body of Tigran Abgaryan.
• One gunshot wound canal on the body of Tigran Abgaryan appeared as a result of the impact of
the first bullet with 5-7 vertebrae of spine which produced multi-fragment gunshot fracture
with displacement of bone fragments and their penetration into the spine canal. That opened a
wide path for other bullets to fly out from the same “exit hole”. Next bullets, flying out from
the same “exit hole” on the body, as expected, left separate “exit holes” on the collar of the
jacket.
• The Conclusion of the forensic medical expert is ambiguous: according to the data of the
medical record, the shot was fired from a distance beyond the range which would allow
speaking of additional factors affecting shooting from this type of weapon. However, this
matter can be further clarified on the basis of forensic gunshot trace examination of clothes
and on the basis of a more comprehensive investigation.
• Tigran Abgaryan’s bullet-proof jacket and other clothing, which could contain proof on the
shooting distance, were not confiscated by the investigators and were not examined by the
experts in charge.
• Comprehensive ballistic and forensic medical examination, which could determine the shooting
distance, has not been ordered by investigators.
• According to the testimonies of the Regiment commanders, Tigran Abgaryan was positioned in
the center of the line, and this excludes the ricochet bullet hit. From the suggested distance aPage 10

10
bullet ricocheting from the wall could not cause a direct wound canal, and possesses kinetic
energy able to produce multi-fragment gunshot fracture of 5-7 vertebrae. Besides, ricochet
bullet hit would result in a blind gunshot wound and would not produce numerous exit wounds
on the collar of the jacket.
• Forensic medical expert didn’t examine other wounds on the body of Tigran Abgaryan, didn’t
explore how and when they occurred.
• In the summary of the Forensic Medical Conclusion it is stated, that in the left forehead back
area there is a vertical, pink, 4. 5 cm long scar of linear shape, in the left temple area there is
vertical, 4.0 cm long scar, there are 10.0 cm long scars on the left frontal neck area surface, on
the right frontal neck area surface originating from the angle of the jaw to the area of upper
collar bone, in the hind head area there are also four scars of round shape covered with brown
crust, located symmetrically to each other at four angles of a square from 2,0x1,0 cm to 3,0x2,0
cm dimensions. There is no explanation of the cause of those injuries and their connection to
the gunshot wound on the neck. It is unclear why the forensic medical expert described them as
“gunshot wound complications that are in consequential relation to the cause of death”. It is
obvious that they can not have any relation to the gunshot wound and that they are the result of
application of blunt physical force.
• There is controversial data in the clarifications given by the Commanders of the military
Regiment regarding the place where the incident occurred. A number of servicemen invited to
the FFG stated that they witnessed the incident first-hand nearby the first archway at the
intersection of Paronyan and Leo streets. The others stated that it happened in the beginning of
Leo Street, nearby “Svin” shop, according to the third version, the incident occurred nearby the
building of Hydro Meteorological Center situated on Leo Street. Explanations regarding the
place to where Tigran Abgaryan was taken after being wounded are also contradicting. Thus,
according to some explanations he was taken to the territory of the Policlinic located on Leo
Street (after breaking its gates), according to the other version he was taken up the stairs of the
Meteorological Center building entrance.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Tigran Abgaryan’s gunshot wounds resulted from point-blank fire, which contradicts the
official statement on his death. The latter insisted that Tigran Abgaryan was wounded by a
shot from a long distance and from where the demonstrators were congregating.
2. The existence of the scars on the victim’s body are consistent with the application of blunt
physical force, during which the victim’s head was apparently not covered by a helmet. This
fact was openly disregarded by the forensic medical expert, who, while mentioning the wounds,
failed to reveal the mechanism and the timing of their appearance.
3. The government’s forensic experts have been clearly defending a single line: to exclude
everything that could confirm the fact of point-blank fire, as well as the application of blunt
physical force, and to affirm the official version by blurring the existing facts. Page 11

mail: Այս էլ-փոստի հասցեն ծածկագրված է թափոնափոստի բոթերից։ Այն տեսնելու համար անհրաժեշտ է միացնել JavaScript։ )

  • Տեղադրված .
  • Դիտումներ: 2259
0
0
0
s2sdefault
logoUSAIDlogo23logo

“Սույն վեբ-կայքի ստեղծումը հնարավոր է դարձել իրականացնել Քաունթերփարթ ինթերնեշնլի հայաստանյան ներկայացուցչության կողմից իրականացվող Քաղաքացիական հասարակության և տեղական ինքնակառավարման աջակցության ծրագրի,  և Ամերիկայի Միացյալ Նահանգների բնակչության առատաձեռն աջակցության շնորհիվ` ԱՄՆ Միջազգային զարգացման գործակալության պայմանագրի շրջանակներում “Հելսինկյան Ասոցիացիայի” միջոցով: Սույնի բովանդակությունը, արտահայտված տեսակետերը և կարծիքները պատկանում են հեղինակին` “Հելսինկյան Ասոցիացիային” և հնարավոր է, որ չհամընկնեն Քաունթերփարթ ինթերնեշնլի հայաստանյան ներկայացուցչության, ԱՄՆ Միջազգային զարգացման գործակալության և ԱՄՆ կառավարության տեսակետերի հետ:”

Designed by Hakob Jaghatspanyan Copyright © 2013 Helsinki Association