VZCZCXRO3517
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHBW RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHYE #0392/01 1350243
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 140243Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7519
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 YEREVAN 000392 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/CARC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KCRM KJUS AM
SUBJECT:  ONE YEAR LATER:  LEVON GULYAN DEATH CASE SMELLS OF 
COVER-UP AS IT REACHES FINAL STAGE 
 
REF:  A) 2007 YEREVAN 713, B) 2007 YEREVAN 649, C) YEREVAN 296 
 
YEREVAN 00000392  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
(U) Sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) One year on from Levon Gulyan's death, the court seems set 
to rule against a Gulyan family appeal of authorities' questionable 
official interpretation.  The appeals came one month after the newly 
formed State Investigative Service (SIS) called the case closed and 
exonerated police in the suspicious death.  The SIS decision raised 
eyebrows in the human rights community, adding to existing doubts 
about the authorities' handling of the case -- and of SIS 
credibility.  Officials banned a march that the Gulyan family 
planned on the anniversary of his death.  END SUMMARY. 
 
---------------- 
APPEAL POSTPONED 
---------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) On April 29, a court of first instance judge postponed 
hearings into the appeal by the family of Armenian citizen Levon 
Gulyan, who suspiciously fell to his death from a police station in 
May 2007 where he was being questioned as a witness to a homicide 
outside his restaurant (reftels A-B).  The Gulyan family lodged the 
appeal in late March after the Special Investigative Service (SIS) 
on March 12 called the case closed and exonerated the police of any 
responsibility. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In its March 12 decision, the SIS found that Gulyan's death 
was of his own doing, and not the result of police malfeasance. 
Describing the circumstances of death, the SIS reiterated the 
contents of the first police report on the case -- that Gulyan 
accidentally fell to his death while trying to escape from the 
police station in question through a second-story window.  Gulyan 
allegedly diverted a police officer by asking for a cup of water, 
after which he made his ill-fated escape out the window, falling 25 
feet to the ground below. 
 
---------------- 
DOUBTS ABOUT SIS 
---------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The SIS' new jurisdiction over the case has raised eyebrows 
in the human rights community.  Formed in December 2007 as an 
independent investigative unit -- nominally reporting directly to 
the president, but housed within the Prosecutor General's offices 
and de facto reporting to the PG --  the SIS was publicly touted as 
a new watchdog agency as a check against official misdeeds.  Local 
observers have been watching the SIS' handling of the Gulyan case to 
get a better idea of its putative independence, and whether it would 
really go full throttle after government employees involved in 
misdoings.  The Gulyan ruling is one of its first high-profile 
cases, with the SIS having taken over the investigation from police 
as soon as the unit was established at the end of last year. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The basis of the SIS decision in particular  -- after ten 
months of official investigations -- has also arched eyebrows. 
According to the SIS, Gulyan's motive for escape was to avoid the 
inevitability of confrontation with a witness who gave conflicting 
testimony on Gulyan's whereabouts during the May 12, 2007, murder 
that occurred outside his restaurant in a district of Yerevan.  The 
light punishment - administrative sanctions -- that the SIS meted 
out to the two police officers who left Gulyan in the room alone 
when he allegedly attempted his escape has only added to doubts 
about the SIS handling of the case. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
FAMILY SLAMS, APPEALS, QUESTIONS SIS INVESTIGATION 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Gulyan's family slammed the SIS investigation as biased, 
unfair, and opaque, and unsuccessfully appealed the decision with 
the Prosecutor General's office on March 20.  (NOTE:  Given the PG 
office's jurisdiction over all government-initiated investigations, 
this is the procedure to follow in such cases before taking a case 
to the court.  END NOTE.)  After the PG office's office rejected the 
claim on March 26, Gulyan's family applied April 8 to the first 
instance court, demanding a new investigation and punishment of 
those guilty in the wrongful death.  During the hearing the family 
had a chance to voice their concerns and pose questions to the court 
as well as the prosecutor and investigator representing the 
government. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Following is an enumeration of the family's principal 
 
YEREVAN 00000392  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
concerns and questions into the handling of the case: 
 
-- there was not any legal status for Gulyan while he was kept for 
extended hours without freedom of movement at the police; 
 
-- not all of the fingerprints found on the window from which Gulyan 
had allegedly tried to escape were identified; 
 
-- no reasonable justification was provided for why a person who had 
voluntarily come to the police would try to escape into a guarded 
police area; 
 
-- the family's statements that Gulyan was beaten were not 
investigated, and the investigation did not specify the cause of 
injuries on Gulyan's body (other than those caused by his fall); 
 
-- the allegations of torture and inhumane treatment of two other 
witnesses involved were not investigated; 
 
-- the SIS did not ensure the conduct of forensic examination using 
a mannequin; 
 
-- the investigation was built solely on the statements of police 
officers who were motivated by self-exculpatory interests in the 
case; 
 
-- the family was prevented from participating in the investigation; 
 
 
-- and forensic examination of the corpse failed to prove that the 
body had hit exterior building pipes during the fall, even though 
the investigators claimed that it did, in order to explain the 
peculiar trajectory of the fall and some of the injuries otherwise 
inexplicable by the official theory (the family believes those 
injuries were the result of police beatings). 
 
¶8. (SBU) Attorneys representing the family also used the hearing to 
voice the range of possible scenarios for the actual cause of 
Gulyan's death: 
 
-- the police threw Gulyan out of the window to cover up torture, or 
Gulyan jumped or tried to escape from inhumane treatment and 
torture; 
 
-- and whatever took place inside the police station holding room 
where Gulyan was being questioned took place one floor higher, in a 
third story office reputedly used by police to extract confessions. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
PROSECUTORS' DEFENSE OF SIS STRAINS CREDULITY 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Emboffs who have attended all the appeal hearings to date 
report being struck by the shoddy defense of the SIS decision by 
government counsel.  A notorious prosecutor and an SIS investigator 
are defending the decision to close the case, and their weak, 
arrogant, and combative argumentation has only served to reinforce 
doubts about the government's handling of the case.  Unable to 
answer any of the family's questions, the two have instead resorted 
to belligerently badgering the Gulyan family's lawyers, constantly 
attacking and interrupting them.  And instead of providing yes or no 
answers to posed questions, they have resorted to stonewalling by 
constantly referring back to case materials or rephrasing the 
questions without providing answers. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The government counsel also blamed the family for not 
presenting any specific appeals, repeating instead that the family 
has presented appeals only on abstract human rights violations. 
After providing a fantastic scenario which described how Gulyan's 
body could have turned around in the air -- so that he fell head 
first onto the ground below instead of feet first if he himself 
initiated the jump -- the SIS investigator rejected the need for a 
forensic examination into the fall that would deploy a mannequin for 
simulation purposes.  The investigator also claimed that the 
government did not have any means for obtaining the mannequin, and 
that the family should have provided it instead.  The two counsel 
could not prove the legal grounds for the police holding of Gulyan, 
but countered that administrative sanctions against the two police 
officers for their deed sufficed as a penalty for their misconduct. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
ANOTHER CASE OF INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIARY? 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶11.  (SBU) On April 29, Judge Gagik Avetisian was expected to 
announce the verdict of the appeal after the two initial hearings. 
 
YEREVAN 00000392  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
Unexpectedly, however, he postponed the hearing until May 22 after 
raising his concerns with government counsel on the unidentified 
fingerprints found on the window from which Gulyan allegedly jumped, 
and the lack of evidence showing that Gulyan's body had indeed hit 
exterior building pipes during its fall.  Representatives of human 
rights organizations present at the hearings told Emboff that 
despite the postponement they have little hope for a fair decision. 
The delay was unexpected to be sure, but they thought it had more to 
do with the judge not yet having marching "instructions" from the 
government.  They said this was probably the result of the 
government's focus on the post-election crackdown against opposition 
supporters. 
 
----------------------------- 
PUBLIC ATTENTION TO CASE POOR 
----------------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) On April 16, before taking their appeal to court, the 
Gulyan family's lawyers organized a press conference in an attempt 
to draw public attention to the hearings.  Only one TV crew showed 
up for the press conference, but subsequently chose not to air any 
footage.  RFE/RL, independent as well as opposition print and 
internet media provided the only coverage of the hearings.  Gulyan's 
family and a few journalists, human rights activists, and 
representatives of international organizations attended the court 
hearings. 
 
-------------------------------- 
POLICE BAN GULYAN FAMILY'S MARCH 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Police interceded to prevent a march that the Gulyan 
family had planned to mark the anniversary of Levon's death on May 
12, citing the Yerevan municipality's refusal to sanction the march. 
 The evening march had been scheduled to proceed from Republic 
Square to police headquarters.  According to Avetik Ishkhanian of 
the local Helsinki Committee human rights organization, who filed 
the march request on May 9, the municipality issued only a verbal 
refusal, and nothing in writing, as is required by law.  About 100 
people defied the verbal refusal, gathering in Republic Square 
before police intervened to prevent the march and filming of the 
event.  Police did allow protesters to light candles in the center 
of the square, however.  According to the pro-opposition A1Plus 
online news service, a similar march was allowed on May 19, 2007, a 
week after Gulyan's death.  The news service speculated that 
authorities banned the anniversary march in light of the ongoing 
political crisis in the country. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) The questionable handling of the Gulyan case speaks for 
itself.  While the lurid details of such cases are rarely fully 
disclosed to the public, police abuse is widely known to be a 
serious problem in Armenia.  The SIS' first high-profile decision 
bodes ill for the credibility of the new watchdog agency, which 
looks increasingly like a stealthy reversal of last year's reform to 
take investigative functions away from the prosecutors, so as to 
create appropriate checks and balances. 
 
PENNINGTON