Canadian-Armenian Arpi Meras, who accuses human rights defender Marina Poghosyan in committing illegal taking of property, was interrogated in the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts of Yerevan, in the previous week. The interrogation revealed why her advocate Hrant Ananyan was trying, in every possible way, to prohibit the elderly woman to answer the questions of the journalists. Testimonies of 81-year-old Arpi Meras were full of contradictions and incomprehensible ideas. Before citing her words, it is important to emphasise that Meras announced in the court that she did not have problems with her memory, twice a year she undergoes medical examination in Canada, as she is a director of a kindergarten and she will not be permitted to work with children if she is not mentally and physically healthy. Moreover, for a moment Meras got so frankly that declared: “I certainly remember what I want to”. Now, let us turn to what Arpi Meras wanted to remember. According to her testimonies – she had issued a power of attorny to her confidant Parina Poghosyan in order the later could repair the apartment. But neither of power of attornies promulgated in the court had a notice that it was issued for the purpose of doing repairs. To the question why neither of the power of attornies contained a word on doing repairs Arpi Meras parried a question: “Does it contain a word certifying that I gave it as a present to Marina Poghosyan?” Meras told that while issuing power of attornies she always had in her mind the idea of issuing them for doing repairs. Though the content of power of attornies certifies that Arpi Meras had authorised Marina Poghosyan to sell the apartment. Moreover, under the power of attorny issued in 2012 Meras added in handwriting that she authorised Marina Poghosyan to sell and give in pledge the immoveable property. To the question why she had written by her own hand that Poghosyan could sell and give in pledge the property, Canadian-Armenian woman answered: “I wrote what I had been told to, I did not make it up… I don’t want to answer this question any more”. Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan clarified for Meras, who had a status of a victim, that she was obliged to answer the questions of the parties, even if she did not like those questions. Nevertheless, Arpi Meras did not clarify who had particularly told her to write such a thing in the power of attorny . Just said that someone told her to do so while she was at the notary, but she did not remember who that person was. Note that while the power of attorny was issued in 2012 Marina Poghosyan was away from Armenia and was not at a notary office with Meras. Marina Poghosyan put a question to Meras — if she wrote whatever she had been told to write, was it possible that at present anyone told her to give testimony against her? This question made prosecutor accuser Edgar Petrosyan furious. He jumped up to object the question and therefore received sanction from the judge. However, the judge removed Petrosyan’s question depriving Meras of the opportunity to remember who had told her to write the testimony during the preliminary investigation. Though, while answering other questions, Canadian-Armenian Meras stated that the testimonies were written according to her words, the investigator read them and she signed under them. It is noteworthy that testimonies, given in the course of preliminary investigation by a diaspora-armenian who did not have Eastern Armenian in a chokehold, remind of legally drawn up indictments. Though the victim stated that testimonies given in the course of preliminary investigation were written according to her words, when Marina Poghosyan asked her whether she understood the meaning of the words “odorakich (air conditioner)”, “barni stoyka (bar counter)” and “tyuner (tuner)”, Meras told she did not know such words. Whereas in testimonies written in the course of preliminary investigation “according to her own words” Arpi Meras used exactly those words. After the interrogation of Arpi Meras, the first volume of the case was promulgated in the court. The next volumes shall be promulgated at the next sitting, which is to be held on 22 March, at 10:00. We will focus on the contradictions existing in the testimonies of victim witness Meras in our further publications.

By Arman Gharibyan

http://www.1in.am/2110322.html[:]