The 27th anniversary of the October 27 atrocity recently passed. Radar Armenia presents an interview with Gagik Jhangiryan—who served as the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Armenia at the time—conducted one year after the tragedy by Anna Israelyan, a journalist for the daily newspaper *Aravot*. The interview was published in the October 31, 2000, issue.
“Military Prosecutor Gagik Jhangiryan was fully aware that he bore the greatest responsibility before future generations regarding the preliminary investigation into the October 27 case. Here are his responses to questions from *Aravot*:
– A few months ago, Yuri Bakhshyan’s widow recalled that everyone—yourself included—had taken an oath at Vazgen Sargsyan’s graveside, vowing to do everything possible to uncover the truth behind this crime. Now, one year after October 27, with the main question—whether this criminal group’s actions were directed or orchestrated—still unanswered, can you say, before your own conscience, that you have fulfilled your oath?
– There was no such formal oath-taking ceremony; however, I personally committed—before my own conscience—to ensuring that everything possible is done to uncover the truth behind this crime fully. While one year may seem like a long time, the full nature of the crime remains unclear even to me. Furthermore, the investigation has not concluded. In reality, the preliminary investigation has only been completed to the extent that the case materials have been made available for review. A significant portion of the criminal case has been separated into a distinct proceeding, within which operational-intelligence and investigative activities are still ongoing. My views and position have not changed: the crime was planned and directed. The issue is that the preliminary investigation has not yet determined which forces were involved—who directed, organized, or planned it. I am certain such parties exist; the question is whether we will be able to uncover them.
– Tigran Janoyan, a lawyer representing the relatives of the victims, expressed skepticism—based on his professional experience—as to whether the severed part of the preliminary investigation would ever lead to a trial.
– First, let me state that Tigran Janoyan has not, in fact, reviewed the case materials. His wife, Marina Halabyan, reviewed the materials with us. Therefore, I cannot say where Tigran Janoyan’s conclusions come from. Furthermore, I do not know what practice Tigran Janoyan is referring to; however, in our Military Prosecutor’s Office, many cases separated [from the main proceedings] ultimately reached a judicial resolution.
– One of the accusations leveled against you: Vazgen Sargsyan’s brother called you a coward.
– I do not wish to respond to our former Prime Minister using the same labels, as he is the younger brother of a fallen friend of mine. I leave that to his own conscience and discretion. However, the subtext behind attaching such labels likely implies that Jhangiryan, at some point, failed to go all the way—that he was held back by something, or left something undone. I believe that Aram Sargsyan—both then and now—has the opportunity to rectify all of Jhangiryan’s mistakes, given that the Prosecutor General of the Republic is his former classmate and a close personal friend. From that perspective, if Jhangiryan failed in his duties, concealed something, or decided under pressure, a Prosecutor General could—at any moment—take the case under the Prosecutor General’s Office’s jurisdiction and rectify those shortcomings. In fact, several decisions related to this case were appealed to the Prosecutor General; furthermore, motions for recusal—filed by the accused and their defense counsel against the Military Prosecutor and the investigative team—were also submitted to the Prosecutor General. Nothing prevented him from addressing these issues.
– Many are surprised by how easily you managed to switch sides and adapt to the realm of political opportunism. Then again, this is considered one of the hallmark traits of a professional jurist: sensing the direction of the wind and choosing not to stand against the storm.
– I would advise all our political figures—as well as those wishing to return to politics—not to be swayed by winds blowing from the north, the West, or any other direction. In general, I believe Armenia needs political tranquility.
– Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan has now publicly posed the same question for the second time, expressing frustration that you persistently leave it unanswered. Perhaps you could answer it now: who has pressured you? If so, which groups have tried to steer the course of the investigation?
– The Prime Minister of the Republic has chosen a rather unique way to engage with the Military Prosecutor—by conducting a Q&A through the press. Yet, between the first time he raised the question and the second, I had two or three face-to-face meetings with the Prime Minister. We have also had a few telephone conversations, but the Prime Minister has not approached me regarding such a matter. I suspect that he might actually know the answers to his own questions better than I do.
– Aram Sargsyan recently also asserted that no one imposed any theories upon Jhangiryan. He further claimed that you were completely free, that you yourself substantiated the necessity for the arrests, and that you did so more effectively than when those same individuals were subsequently released.
– Of course, I was free to act. And I bear full responsibility for every decision the investigative team and I made. As for how successful I was in substantiating the arrests and the dismissals of cases—I can elaborate. During a very significant conversation, someone suggested that perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned this publicly—for the whole nation to hear. But now seems to be the right moment, so I must say this: back when the four individuals you are aware of—who were charged with instigating and aiding a terrorist act—were still in pre-trial detention, Prime Minister Aram Sargsyan, in the presence of high-ranking officials, stated his belief that the crime had been committed solely by Nairi Hunanyan and his group, and that I was wasting my time looking for other people elsewhere. Notably, some of those present during that conversation are now, once again, by Aram Sargsyan’s side. – Yet, he now publicly claims the opposite—that they were not “romantic fanatics.”
– As for what has changed to lead Aram Sargsyan to alter his opinion regarding the events of the 27th [of October], it would be best to ask him yourself.
– Last December, it was made quite clear that the sentiment within *Yerkrapah* circles favored holding snap presidential elections. Furthermore, it was suggested that you curbed this push for a change of power in January. Rumor had it that you dissuaded the *Yerkrapah* members so you could pave the way for your own candidacy for one of the country’s highest offices.
– To be honest, such rumors reached me as well. Apparently, I was offered every possible position—Minister of Defense, Prosecutor General, Prime Minister. There were even rumors that I was set to be elected President. I must say I have serious suspicions that the events of the 27th were intended to create internal political instability in Armenia and undermine and weaken the country. Therefore, in my capacity as the head of the preliminary investigation body—and as an individual who held a certain degree of influence over various circles—I did everything in my power to ensure Armenia’s internal political stability. As for how far I succeeded, or whether I could have done more—or perhaps did too little—that is not for me to judge.
– Ashot Manucharyan and many others now state that they do not trust you. Consequently, they are refusing to cooperate with the preliminary investigation body.
– Let me remind you that I did not take the preliminary investigation into the crime of the 27th under the jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor’s Office on my own initiative. That case was assigned to us by the former Prosecutor General. When a new Prosecutor General was appointed—I hadn’t intended to mention this, but now I feel compelled to—I went to the homes of Vazgen Sargsyan and Karen Demirchyan. I asked their family members to have the case transferred from the Military Prosecutor’s Office to the Prosecutor General’s Office. Previously, the argument was that they did not trust the former Prosecutor General; however, with the appointment of a new Prosecutor General—someone close to the Sargsyan family—that obstacle was removed, and I felt a moral obligation to take this step. Both families rejected my request. It is well known that I subsequently made several further attempts to have the case transferred to the Prosecutor General’s Office, but I was unsuccessful; my requests did not receive a favorable response. Meanwhile, in my official capacity as Deputy Prosecutor General, I am obligated to follow the Prosecutor General’s instructions. If there is a lack of trust now, no one is precluded from changing that. Take Aram Sargsyan, for instance—he claims he doesn’t trust me; well, does he trust Nazaryan? He could ask Nazaryan for the case file, and they could take it over themselves. In short, I have never intended—neither at the outset nor now—to keep the preliminary investigation of this case within the Military Prosecutor’s Office.
– A public accusation has been made, suggesting that the President attempted to conceal the primary theory of the case from the investigation. Members of Parliament who have reviewed the case materials argue that the theories involving external influence or economic motives have not been sufficiently examined. At one point, Serzh Sargsyan stated during a press conference that the organizers might well be found within Vazgen Sargsyan’s own circle. How would you respond to these three points—framed here as accusations—regarding the various theories?
– I don’t see any accusations here. No one has the right to access the separate part of the case, in which the preliminary investigation is still ongoing. The theories you mentioned exist within this separate part and are currently being investigated. I cannot say that the theories you referred to have been definitively refuted; for now, they are still being examined. Moreover, Vazgen Sargsyan’s circle was so vast… Even Aleksan Harutyunyan was part of Vazgen Sargsyan’s circle (incidentally, so were Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan—the editor-in-chief of *Haykakan Zhamanak* pointed out, and Gagik Jhangiryan immediately agreed—A. I.). His circle was so extensive that it would be difficult to name anyone of even moderate prominence in the republic who had not interacted with Vazgen Sargsyan. – According to attorney Marina Halabyan, no investigation was conducted at all; meanwhile, Tigran Janoyan stated that the circumstances of the case remained the same both before and after the arrest of the former defendants—only the preliminary investigation body’s attitude toward, and assessment of, those circumstances had changed.
– This statement by Mr. Janoyan proves, once again, that he has not familiarized himself with the materials of the criminal case. The deadline for reviewing the preliminary investigation materials expires on the 13th; at that point, Ms. Halabyan—through her motions to supplement the preliminary investigation—will attempt to demonstrate the extent to which her judgments and assessments regarding the work performed are fair and impartial.
– I would also like to clarify another report that has been published: that you allegedly convinced the “Unity” alliance and the *Yerkrapah* members that their suspicions regarding Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan were well-founded, and that approximately 20 high-ranking officials in the country were implicated in the events of October 27.
– That is yet another absurdity. I have no idea where they get these stories before publishing them. For instance, there was another such absurdity—the claim that I had orchestrated the bombing of my own home. – Has the hypothesis that the Goble Plan and the events of October 27 were interconnected been investigated?
– During the initial phase of the investigation, we carried out both investigative and operational-intelligence work regarding this connection. When the time is right, we will share the details. The issue is that Ashot Manucharyan and several others now claim to have facts proving that the events of October 27 were a direct consequence of the stance taken by Vazgen Sargsyan and Karen Demirchyan against the territorial exchange plan. Consequently, we had no choice but to summon Mr. Manucharyan to the Military Prosecutor’s Office—the law mandates this. Very well, if you do not trust the Military Prosecutor, then by all means, present the information to the Prosecutor General. If you do not trust law enforcement agencies, then present it to the press.
– Is this crime still classified as an attempted coup d’état, or is it now a matter of terrorism alone?
– Unfortunately, this is the result of a legal misunderstanding. In my recent interview, I referred to it as a “case initiated in connection with the act of terrorism that took place on the 27th.” I did not say that the charges had been changed. The charges of high treason, attempted seizure of power, organizational activities directed toward particularly dangerous state crimes—as well as all other criminal counts previously brought—remain in place.
Questions by ANNA ISRAYELYAN.
