Former Military Prosecutor Gagik Jhangiryan stated today that the National Security [service] possessed information regarding the preparation of the October 27 atrocity.
In this context, Radar Armenia presents testimony Eduard Grigoryan gave on February 23, 2000, as one of the defendants in the “October 27” case, as well as the transcript of a confrontation held the following day between Grigoryan and former National Security official Melkon Yesayan.
Testimony of Eduard Grigoryan: Volume 23, pages 143–145
“Question: According to your statements, on October 27, 1999, you were confident that after carrying out your planned actions, you would return home. Why did you have such confidence?
Answer : I was convinced that Nairi, Karen, and Vram would not reach the session hall; instead, National Security officers would stop and apprehend them.
Question: On what basis did you form this conviction?
Answer: Until now, I have not disclosed this because it concerns my relatives and close associates. However, realizing that any information could help uncover the truth, I have decided to testify. On October 8, 1999, my relatives and neighbors gathered at our home to celebrate my birthday. My father and mother were present—though they left after about an hour—as were my friends Nairi, his brother Karen, and Artur; my neighbor Felix; my brother-in-law (my wife’s sister’s husband) Melkon; my wife; and my two sisters-in-law. Toward the end of the gathering, Nairi began talking about politics. At that time, Artur, Karen, Felix, Melkon, and I were at the table. Felix—that is, Felix Petrosyan, my neighbor from across the hall in apartment No. 3—is a member of the Dashnaktsutyun party; Nairi recommended him and administered his oath. Melkon Yesayan is my brother-in-law (my wife’s sister’s husband); he works for the National Security Service (NSS). When I asked which department he worked in, he avoided answering, leading me to conclude he worked in some secret division.
Nairi had long known—from me—that Melkon worked for the NSS. On my birthday, with only the aforementioned individuals at the table, Nairi began discussing the country’s dire state, criticizing the authorities, and insisting the only solution was to change the government.
At that point, Artur argued with him, saying, “Who are you to do such a thing, and how exactly are you going to pull it off?” Nairi, under the influence of alcohol—a state in which he becomes even more animated than usual—began to outline his plan for seizing the National Assembly’s session hall, the same plan he had previously shared with me. Specifically, he explained that the government holds its Q&A session every Wednesday, when everyone is gathered in one place; the idea was to enter the hall armed, line everyone up against the wall, demand a live broadcast, and force them to document all their illicit acts on air. He believed that the public and political parties, inspired by this, would support the action, making it possible to change the government. During this conversation, Melkon told Nairi that someone truly intent on taking action wouldn’t talk so much—noting that, these days, every fourth person is an informant—and, echoing Arthur’s sentiment, he dismissed the plan as unfeasible. During the conversation, Nairi blamed V. Sargsyan for the situation, saying positive change would come only after he was removed from the political arena. As the argument grew heated, Melkon—seeking to defuse the tension—left for home with his wife and children.
After seeing Melkon and his family off, I reproached Nairi for arguing with my guests. I had scolded him many times for talking about a coup everywhere—including in front of my brother-in-law, Melkon, an officer with the National Security Service (NSS). Nairi had told me that NSS officers would also join our side, reasoning that they, too, have families and need to put food on the table. A few days later, my wife and I visited Melkon and his family in the evening. We were having coffee and chatting about various topics when—I don’t recall who brought it up—the conversation turned to something Nairi had said earlier that day (regarding seizing the National Assembly’s session hall). In response, Melkon remarked that Nairi was all talk; if it came down to actual action, he wouldn’t do a thing—he was blowing hot air. I, however, expressed my conviction that Nairi would indeed follow through on what he had said. Melkon told me that even if Nairi wanted to, he couldn’t pull it off, and added—with certainty—that the NSS (National Security Service) already knew about it. From his remarks, I gathered that since Melkon is an NSS officer—and thus obligated to report what he hears—he had relayed Nairi’s account to his superiors.
Furthermore, Melkon noted that even if Nairi tried to carry out his plan, he wouldn’t get very far. It became clear to me that the NSS was already informed and prepared to prevent it. Moreover, during our conversation, Nairi had stated—in everyone’s presence—that the plan could be carried out on the day of the Q&A session, that is, on Wednesday. I did not ask Melkon who else knew, as he is discreet and would never share anything related to his service with me. With this much written down, it should be clear why I was certain the operation would not take place—or, in other words, why I believed Nairi and his group would be caught before reaching the hall. I even thought we might be stopped along the way, but once we arrived, I assumed they would apprehend them inside. At that moment, my state of mind was deeply conflicted. On one side was my old friend, and on the other, my brother-in-law. I could no longer stop my friend, nor could I tell him what Melkon had said. Given the circumstances, I was startled to hear a commotion over the radio that sounded like gunfire. I told Dero, “Let’s go,” then got out of the car; as I passed Ashot’s vehicle, I told him, “Drive.” However, not entirely certain that what I had heard was indeed gunfire, I approached the police officer on duty, and we spoke—the same conversation I described in my previous statement. Just as the officer was asking me to leave the National Assembly grounds, Dero appeared, holding an automatic rifle; overcoming my fear, I decided to head toward the assembly hall. Because I didn’t understand what had happened and was frightened, it was hard to go to the [parliament] hall; however, not going would have meant betraying my friend. So, forcing myself, I went to the hall. Upon seeing the victims there, I was initially in a state of shock, but I pulled myself together and began working to prevent further gunfire and casualties.
To this day, I still do not understand why the security services failed to prevent Nairi, Karen, and Vram from entering the National Assembly hall.
This testimony is written in my own hand; it is accurate.”
Transcript of the confrontation between Eduard Grigoryan and National Security officer Melkon Yesayan – Volume 23, pp. 150–153
“In response to the question of whether they know each other and what the nature of their relationship is, the individuals being confronted replied:
E. Grigoryan: Melkon Yesayan, who is being questioned in this face-to-face confrontation, is my wife’s sister’s husband. Our relationship is one of normal kinship. We have never had any enmity, nor do we have any now.
M. Yesayan: Eduard Grigoryan, who is being questioned in this face-to-face confrontation, is my wife’s sister’s husband. We have a close, familial relationship. There has never been any enmity between us, nor is there any now.
Question to E. Grigoryan: What discussion regarding politics took place at your home on the evening of October 8, 1999, and who was present and participated in that discussion?
Answer: It was my birthday. Nairi, Karen, Artur, Melkon, and Felix were present at our home during that discussion.
As always, Nairi initiated the conversation. Starting with the generally poor state of affairs in the country, he gradually moved on to his ideas about how to change the situation. Specifically, he claimed the government wasn’t functioning and that everyone was corrupt, identifying V. Sargsyan as the primary person to blame. At that point, Artur began to argue with Nairi, asserting that Nairi had no right to criticize or even contemplate changing anything, given that he had done nothing until then and had lived comfortably in Crimea during those “dark and cold” years. We were all under the influence of alcohol; the other participants in the conversation—Melkon, Felix, and Artur—expressed skepticism toward Nairi, arguing that changing the situation was no easy task and that Nairi stood no chance of accomplishing it. Emboldened, Nairi declared that the government must resign. As I recall, Artur asked, “How exactly do you intend to force that?” An agitated Nairi replied, “I will enter the National Assembly with a weapon and force them to do it.” In any case, the majority of the people also believe that the primary culprit is Vazgen Sargsyan. These were the main points and remarks made by Nairi during the conversation.
Question to M. Yesayan: You have heard the response given by E. Grigoryan—who is being questioned in a face-to-face confrontation—what is your own answer to the same question, and what do you have to say regarding E. Grigoryan’s response?
Answer: On October 8, 1999, at E. Grigoryan’s home, loud music was playing from the very beginning, and the children were dancing.
The tape recorder was positioned not far from me. I couldn’t hear the conversation N. Hunanyan—seated at the other end of the table—was having with those near him. As I rose from the table at the moment of leave-taking, I heard N. Hunanyan remark that all one needed to do was seize the television station, the post office, and the airport, address the people live on television, and the rest would follow automatically. He was intoxicated and swaying; it was difficult to interpret his words as anything other than a foolish joke. As for what N. Hunanyan might have said to his own neighbors, I cannot say, as I was speaking with Felix, a neighbor of E. Grigoryan.
Question to E. Grigoryan: You heard M. Yesayan’s response during the face-to-face interrogation. What do you have to say regarding this?
Answer: I do not deny that music was playing; however, not everyone was completely absorbed in listening to Nairi every single moment—people were also coming and going. However, I would like to remind the person being cross-examined that when Nairi was explaining how he envisioned the execution of orders issued by the ministers held hostage inside, he asked Melkon—who was outside—who the deputy ministers of the Ministry of National Security (MNS) were and what kind of people they were. If I recall correctly, Melkon mentioned two names—G. G. and someone else whose name I don’t remember—and described both of them as experienced, competent employees.
Question to M. Yesayan: You have heard the response from the person being cross-examined. What do you have to say regarding this?
Answer: In response to N. Hunanyan’s question about who the deputy ministers of our ministry were—and his request for a characterization of them—I replied that they were G. Grigoryan and G. Hakobyan, and I described them as career officers. As for what he may have said to those sitting next to him at the table before that, I cannot say.
The deputy ministers’ names are not a secret; they can be found in the official announcements of any newspaper.
Question to E. Grigoryan: Regarding the aforementioned conversation—did you speak with the person being interrogated [in a face-to-face setting] after that, or not? If so, when and where did this take place, and what did you discuss?
Answer: As far as I recall, Melkon and I discussed this at his home a few days after my birthday, when my wife and I visited them. When the topic of Nairi’s behavior during the events came up, I remarked that the man had decided to turn the country upside down. Melkon replied that someone truly planning such an action wouldn’t go around talking about it so openly; he noted that every fourth person is an informant, and that before Nairi could even think of or attempt to do anything, he would be arrested.
Question to M. To Yesayan: You heard the response E. Grigoryan gave during the confrontation/questioning; what can you say about it?
Answer: E. Grigoryan asked me about what N. Hunanyan had said that same day—October 8, 1999—just before we (my family and I) were leaving. I said that someone planning to take such a step would not talk about it, because the National Security authorities would find out and prevent it. E. Grigoryan came to our home with his wife on Monday, October 25, 1998, at a time when my wife had just received a negative result from the X-ray Institute. They stayed at our house for only a few minutes. We had some coffee. During that time, E. Grigoryan called an acquaintance—a doctor, though a specialist in a different field. My children were also at home with us. Given my wife’s condition, and the fact that E. [Grigoryan] was expressing sympathy for her… Regarding Grigoryan’s wife—we did not discuss politics at all that day.
In response to Narine’s question about whether E. Grigoryan could drive them to the X-Ray Institute—and when—Grigoryan replied that no prior arrangement was needed. He said that after work, he would stop by his home, pick up his wife, then come to our place, and we would head over. I should add that on October 8, 1999, just before I left their home, E. Grigoryan asked for my thoughts on what N. Hunanyan had said. I replied, among other things, that it was a drunk man’s rambling.
Question to M. Yesayan: Which of N. Hunanyan’s statements or ideas did you characterize as “rambling”?
Answer: N. Hunanyan claimed it would suffice to call on the people via television to rise; by doing so, they would replace the leaders they did not want, and the country’s situation would improve. Today, many people are weary of politics; they have no desire to listen to political broadcasts, let alone heed anyone’s call to action. I characterized the idea of addressing the public via television with such a call as the ravings of a delirious person.
Question to M. Yesayan: So, are you saying that you understood N. Hunanyan to be expressing his opinion on how a coup d’état could be carried out in Armenia—and that you interpreted this as the ravings of an intoxicated individual?
Answer: The word “Armenia” never appeared in anything N. Hunanyan said. He was speaking in general terms. Furthermore, it is difficult to classify replacing one or two ministers as an attempted coup d’état.
Question to E. Grigoryan: Did you tell M. To Yesayan: [You stated] that what Nairi Hunanyan said was not mere words or the ravings of a madman, and that whatever Nairi said, he would actually do.
Answer: I don’t recall the exact words, but I did think that at the time. In response, Melkon said he wouldn’t even get the chance to try—that the NSS [National Security Service] would prevent it.
Question to Yesayan: You have heard the response from the person being cross-examined. What do you have to say regarding this? Did he tell you that Nairi would carry out what he had said, or not?
Answer: Perhaps he did say that; I don’t remember. It’s just that it was not in N. Hunanyan’s character to see a task through to the end. He might propose many ideas or suggestions, only to abandon them later. He could even leave a task he had already started unfinished. That is why I did not take his words seriously.
Question to M. To Yesayan: What did you mean when you said the national security authorities would find out and prevent it? Did you tell anyone about Nairi Hunanyan’s remarks on October 8, 1999?
Answer: I meant that if N. Hunanyan kept expressing this idea at every turn, many people would inform the security authorities, who would take measures and not even allow an attempt to be made. I did not take N. Hunanyan’s words seriously and had even forgotten about them by October 27, 1999, as I was more concerned about my wife’s intensifying and increasingly frequent pains. I do not recall whether I told anyone about what he had said.
Question to E. Grigoryan : Where, in fact, did you speak with M. Yesayan about what Nairi had said—was it at your home, as M. claims? Was it at Yesayan’s home, as you stated?
Answer: After M. Yesayan’s response, I recalled that the aforementioned conversation did, in fact, take place at our home while I was seeing Melkonents off. We walked together to the building’s entrance door; the conversation in question occurred then and lasted 3–4 minutes.
My testimony from this confrontation was read aloud; it is written in my own hand and is accurate. I have no questions for the person I am being confronted with.
Grigoryan
My testimony from this confrontation was read aloud; it is written in my own hand and is accurate. I have no questions for the person with whom I am being confronted.
Yesayan”
