ONE YEAR LATER: LEVON GULYAN DEATH CASE SMELLS OF

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