Results of expert examination of videos related to Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan are known
The Investigative Committee has confirmed that the person depicted in the videos attributed to Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan on the internet is indeed the Archbishop. This information was reported to Amnews by the Investigative Committee. The conclusion of the forensic video-audio and portrait examination ordered as part of the criminal proceedings has been received and forwarded to one of the members of the commission established at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.
Let us remind you that weeks ago, an intimate video attributed to Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan was circulated on the internet. Its authenticity had not been officially confirmed until now.
The Archbishop’s lawyer, Arsen Babayan, reports that today he received a notification from the IC via email, stating that a decision to appoint an expert examination was made on November 25, and the conclusion was also received on the same day. The IC offered Archbishop Arshak to appear to familiarize himself with the conclusion, but the latter refused.
The lawyer raised a number of harsh criticisms against the IC, claiming that the investigator violated Archbishop Arshak’s rights. According to him, the decision was not presented to the Archbishop before the examination, the Archbishop and his defender were deprived of the right to ask additional questions to the expert, they were not allowed to participate in the examination process, etc.
He also noted that, according to a document signed by several clergymen, they received the expert examination conclusion from the Investigative Committee on November 25 itself. This means that the conclusion was provided by the investigator on the very same day the examination was ordered, which makes it obvious that an objective examination could not have been conducted on the same day. The Investigative Committee had no right to provide such a conclusion to any other person, including clergymen.
Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan, reaffirming his claim that he does not trust bodies carrying out “assignments from the political authorities of the day,” refuses to visit the IC and review the conclusion.
It should be noted that the Investigative Committee has not addressed the procedural questions raised by the lawyer in any public statement or commentary.