PERPETRATORS OFF THE HOOK, AS GOAM DROPS THE CASE AROUND

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