VZCZCXRO9221
RR RUEHDBU RUEHLN RUEHSK RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHYE #0525 2101820
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 291820Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9332
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 0760
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0610

UNCLAS YEREVAN 000525 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR DEPT FOR DRL AND EUR/CARC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV AM
SUBJECT: PERPETRATORS OFF THE HOOK, AS GOAM DROPS THE CASE AROUND 
ATTACK ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST 
 
REF: 08 YEREVAN 425 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: One year after the incident, Yerevan police have 
terminated the criminal investigation into the May 21, 2008 assault 
on prominent human rights activist Mikael Danielian of the Armenian 
Helsinki Association (reftel).  From the start, police showed little 
interest in investigating the actions of alleged assailant Tigran 
Urikhanian, despite compelling evidence that he had provoked the 
incident and attacked Danielian once he recognized him as a 
prominent human rights activist and an outspoken government critic. 
END SUMMARY 
 
ATTACKED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) On May 21, 2008, Mikael (Misha) Danielian, director of the 
Armenian Helsinki Association, was riding in a taxi in downtown 
Yerevan midday when he was allegedly accosted at an intersection by 
Tigran Urikhanian, a marginal pro-governmental activist, and shot 
with an air gun.  Danielian contended from the start that while it 
was not a premeditated attack, Urikhanian and his accomplices 
engaged in an unprovoked assault in retaliation for his human rights 
activities.  Urikhanian, however, made the first call to police and 
alleged that Danielian had in fact assaulted him. 
 
¶3. (SBU) After the altercation, police brought both Danielian and 
Urikhanian to a downtown police station to record their accounts 
before allowing Danielian to receive medical attention.  Police 
launched a criminal case on hooliganism charges, but Danielian's 
status (victim, witness or perpetrator) and that any of the others 
involved remained vague until the case was dropped.  (Note: 
Throughout the investigation Danielian told us that the police had 
hinted to him that he may be considered a defendant unless he 
dropped the case.  End Note.) 
 
¶4. (SBU) The Police decision of May 21, 2009 referred to Danielian 
as a witness and made it clear that police did not unequivocally 
regard him as the victim in this incident, even though they 
acknowledged that he had to protect himself from his attackers. 
(Note: Danielian apparently landed several blows on Urikhanian.  End 
Note).  The decision to drop the case concluded that there was no 
intent to  disturb public order in the actions of Danielian, 
Urikhanian or his accomplices, Hamazasp Uzunian and Arsen Mkrtchian, 
which therefore made it impossible to classify the incident as 
hooliganism. 
 
¶5. (SBU) While police concluded that Danielian's actions constituted 
legitimate self-defense against a threat to his life and health by 
attackers Urikhanian and Uzunian, they never levied assault charges 
against Urikhanian.  In their report dropping the case, they 
rationalized that Urikhanian, who they learned has a serious eye 
condition, was concerned that Danielian might aggravate that 
condition and therefore Urikhanian believed he was also acting in 
self-defense, even though he was the one who instigated the attack. 
Police concluded that while Urikhanian's actions were outside the 
scope of legitimate self-defense, there was no crime in his actions, 
since the damage to Danielian's health was minor. 
 
¶6. (SBU) In the case of Uzunian and Mkrtchian, police concluded that 
their actions contained elements of a crime under Article 118 of the 
Criminal Code (beating).  However since Uzunian and Mkrtchian 
reportedly assisted police in the investigation, had no prior 
criminal records, and have repented their actions, the police 
declined to prosecute them. (Note: Although the Armenian Criminal 
Code, does allow for leniency in light of "repentance," according to 
Danielyan,  his attackers have not apologized to him in any way. End 
Note). 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) From the outset, police appeared not to take seriously the 
assault by Urikhanian and his accomplices against Danielian, nor to 
exert much effort to distinguish between assailant and victim.  This 
is yet another instance in which police have engaged in a 
thinly-veiled cover-up of the misdoings of a government supporter 
(no matter how obscure and marginal) against a government critic, 
even though they were aware that the incident was sure to receive 
attention from the international community. End Comment. 
 
YOVANOVITCH