"Which minster gave you a car?"
"You blackmail me. I am not a police agent," Samvel Gasbaryan, a witness for the case of Alexander Arzumanyan and Samvel Gasparyan said at the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court.
Note that the witness had earlier requested that he be given another opportunity to testify since he was displeased with ensuing press coverage that labeled him an "agent". Despite objections heard in the court, the judge granted the request.
"If so, let's invite spy Romik as well," observed defendant Suren Sirunyan.
During the interrogation, Suren Sirunyan asked a question to the witness but as the latter had labeled the prosecutors "robbers" Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan removed Gasparyan from the courtroom.
Suren Sirunyan finally raised his question: "Who gave you the right to enter the Ministry of Interior Forces? And since when have you had entry to the Ministry?" "Which of the ministers presented a car to you and why?"
"I have got no car. He is lying. This is a mere blackmail," replied the witness.
"Once I worked in the Ministry and am well aware of everything," noted defendant Sirunyan.
Prosecutor Koryun Piloyan motioned the court to allow for a new witness to testify in the case. The witness in question was Hrachik Atoyan, who had testified earlier today in the trial of Hakob Hakobyan.
The defense objected to the motion. Prosecutor Piloyan argued that Mr. Atoyan was one of the witnesses registered in the previous case of seven and that he has the right to subpoena Mr. Atoyan.
"You may subpoena an Arthur Hovsepyan jailed in Nubarashen prison, too" hinted Suren Sirunyan,
Prosecutor Piloyan said the court bailiffs had already been sent for witness Atoyan.
The court stated that the previous motion of defense lawyer Liparit Simonyan to have the video tapes and phone conversations examined by a body of experts couldn't take place before July 20 since the expert panel was presently backlogged and overworked.
Mr. Simonyan requested that the examination be conducted by another body of experts, since the July 20 date was unreasonable, or else the evidence should be thrown out. Both defendants also called for the evidence to be thrown out. The presiding judge then agreed to have another panel of experts examine the tapes and recorded phone conversations.
