Summary:
In September 2003, K. George Najarian brought criminal charges against Grigor Igityan, a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, for embezzling investments Najarian made in Armenia starting in 1996. Briefly, Igityan acted as Najarian’s representative in two land development projects (1998-2002), and was a partner with him in a Yerevan photo shop which Najarian purchased in 1996 and financed through 2002. Using the limited Power of Attorney Najarian had granted to him, Igityan illegally privatized the land and buildings in question as well as the photo shop in his name. To this day, despite nearly three years of ongoing investigations and five court decisions rendered by Armenia’s criminal courts (including the Court of Cassation), all confirming Najarian’s claims, this case has not been prosecuted and Igityan still holds full title to Najarian’s properties.

On January 25, 2006 the Court of Appeals handed down yet another decision denying the Prosecutor General’s appeal to dismiss the case. (The Court of Cassation, Armenia’s highest court has refused to hear an appeal of this decision, and therefore the Court of Appeals decision stands as law.)
The Court of Appeals did the following:

1. Rejected the notion that this is a civil case clearly stating the case is a criminal case.
2. Pointed out that in dismissing the case again after naming G. Najarian a victim under Armenia’s Criminal Code, the Investigative Body (IB) ignored its own evidence again G. Igityan and failed to follow the courts’ directives. By dismissing the case, the I.B. in effect ‘contradicted’ itself.
3. Asked, “… if there is an absence of corpus delicti against G. Igityan, then who caused G. Najarian property loss…” which clearly occurred through criminal activity?
4. Cited the I.B. for failing to investigate and properly clarifying various aspects of the case all of which the court listed over several pages. (All of the omissions would support the case against Igityan).
5. Criticized the I.B. for not explaining fully the discrepancies in contracts Igityan had contractors sign and which he presented to Najarian and the actual agreements for payment for less that he had with contractors. (Not only did Igityan steal Najarian’s properties, he also embezzled money through manipulating contracts.) The Court cited the I.B. for ignoring these and similar findings pointing to criminal activity in making their decision to dismiss this case.
6. Asked, “… how it is that Igityan has everything, while nothing is registered in Najarian’s name.”

In conclusion, the judges wrote: “… G. Najarian, a US citizen, is an aggrieved person in this case, who has property loss through actions prohibited by the Criminal Code of RA, that have been confirmed by all three Courts existent in the Republic of Armenia, and stated by the Investigative Body which is carrying out the investigation of the criminal case. Therefore, the person who committed the actions prohibited by the Criminal Code of RA is to be found out and undergo criminal liability.”

As of this date, nearly 4 months after the above decision, the Prosecutor General’s Office has not obeyed the court’s ruling. Although the investigation has been reopened, the ‘suspect’ has not been named and Najarian’s attorneys continue to be excluded from the investigative process (contrary to the court’s directives) – they cannot question witnesses, call witnesses, or question Igityan. In addition, their letters to the Prosecutor General’s Office requesting information remain unanswered.

In addition, the investigators are continuing with their practice of trying to discredit George Najarian and his wife, Dr. Carolann Najarian, by making bizarre claims. For example, they spread a rumor that the Najarians attempted to bribe an official with the promise of a Harvard education for his child. (Anyone familiar with Harvard and the difficulty with getting in knows this is an offer no one from Boston would ever make!) Not only have they tried these kinds of tactics, but investigators have repeatedly tried to intimidate witnesses who have testified in support of our claims with the hope of getting them to change their testimonies.

We are writing to those concerned with human rights and rule of law in Armenia. This case demonstrates a disregard for the rule of law, transparency of process, and due process. The Courts have, in this case, worked diligently and carefully, resisting the pressures brought to bear on them. However, those charged with investigation and prosecution (the Investigative Body in the Prosecutor General’s Office) have ignored the directives of the Courts, thus putting themselves above the law. In Armenia, there is no way to enforce the decisions of the courts.

Following is an outline of events and court decisions presented in brief. Additional information is available upon request, including copies of court decisions. Articles about this case have appeared in the press in Armenia. Please see www.hetq.am.

Timeline of Events

1996-97 -- (Photo shop established; the land purchased) (Igityan was brought to the Boston for corrective surgery for infertility – paid for by the Najarians. The surgery was successful)

1998-2001 -- buildings were constructed with Igityan acting as George Najarian’s representative through a limited Power of Attorney. Igityan negotiated the purchase of the land, and subsequent contracts for the first part of the building phase. Igityan privatized the land and the buildings in his name – using the Power of Attorney and fraudulent means. (However, this was discovered much later as was the fact that he also embezzled funds through the building contracts. He had the builders sign contracts for higher amounts, to show George Najarian, while actually paying them considerably lower fees.)

Najarian became dissatisfied with the quality of Igityan’s work and took him off the project. Not yet fully understanding what Igityan’s intention was, George Najarian continued with the construction of the two buildings for another 2 years.

Jan - June 2003 -- George Najarian maid attempts to negotiate a settlement with Igityan. When he failed, he consulted with several attorneys in Armenia – all advised him that his case was clear cut fraud and criminal, and not a civil case. Eventually, the Najarians file a criminal complaint against Igityan with the Yerevan Prosecutor’s office in Sept 2003.

Dec 2003 -- The case was dismissed by the Yerevan Prosecutor's Office after a 4 month long questionable investigation. (It was clear at the time what had occurred)

March 2004 - the Najarians appealed the decision to then Prosecutor General Aram Tamazyan. After hearing Najarian’s complaints regarding the conduct of the case to that time, he reopened the case and promised a speedy and fair process. He apologized to Najarian in front of his deputies for the mishandling of the case and its dismissal by the Yerevan city prosecutor.

One week later Tamazyan was removed from office – unrelated to our case – and replaced with the new Prosecutor General, Aghvan Hovsepyan.

Volumes of testimony and evidence were compiled. As in the previous investigation, most of the investigation centered on the Najarians (George and Carolann gave 40 hours and 7 hours of testimony respectively). Contractors, the previous owners of the land, and many of the people the Najarians helped over the years with humanitarian assistance were called in repeatedly and questioned over and over again.

October 9, 2004 – After 9 months of investigation, the case is dismissed again, this time by Aghvan Hovsepyan. The Najarian appealed this decision to the Court of First Intention.

First round of court appeals

Dec. 25, 2004 – Najarian’s appeal was granted by the Court of First Intention –the court ordered the case reopened. The court named Najarian a 'victim” of criminal activity and the case was sent back to the investigators. The judge wrote that the investigators had not worked properly and had misinterpreted evidence. The judge orders the 11 volumes of evidence gathered by the investigators to be made available to Najarian’s attorneys.

Jan. 2005 - The Prosecutor General appealed to the Court of Review to overturn the above decision and to uphold his office’s dismissal of the Najarian case.

March 10, 2005 -- The Court of Review denied the Prosecutor General’s appeal. The judges wrote:

“…the appeal of review of the prosecutor is baseless and thus shall be left without satisfaction...” thus upholding the decision of the lower court to reopen the case as a criminal case. The Court of Review based their decision on “…Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Protection of Basic Freedoms, and also based on the provisions of the Republic of Armenia’s Criminal Procedure Code…”

April 2005 - The Prosecutor General appealed the Court of Review decision to Armenia’s highest court, the Court of Cassation.

April 22, 2005 – The Court of Cassation denied and the Prosecutor General’s appeal. The case was ordered reopened. The judges wrote that “considerable and substantial evidence” exists to make this decision. The court confirmed both lower court decisions stating the following:

1)George Najarian is the “victim”;
2) the case is criminal;
3) the State has an interest in prosecuting the perpetrator of these criminal acts;
4) the Prosecutor General’s investigators misinterpreted law and failed to investigate the evidence presented to them properly.

Furthermore, the judges listed the evidence that was ignored and/or manipulated in support of the accused, Igityan. The judges also listed the contradictions in Igityan’s testimony that were accepted as facts by the investigators.

Case is reopened/dismissed/two more court appeals

May 21, 2005 -- The Prosecutor General’s Office notified Najarian that the case was to be reopened. George Najarian was named “the victim” and and was told he would be given all of the rights accorded to ‘victims’ under Armenian law – however, this did not happen. Najarian’s attorneys continued to be denied access to the investigation – to be present while witnesses were questioned and to have access to evidence gathered.
Instead, the investigators began recalling key witnesses with the intent of getting them to change their testimony under pressure.

August 2005: Predictably, the case was again dismissed by the Prosecutor General’s Office citing lack of evidence.

Najarian again appealed to the Court of First Intention to reopen the criminal case.

October 2005: The Court of First Intention grants Najarian’s appeal and orders the criminal case be reopened.
The Prosecutor General appeals this decision.

December 16, 2005: The Court of Appeals heard the appeal. The judges took an unprecedented one month to review all 13 volumes of evidence gathered by the investigative body of the Prosecutor General’s Office before handing down their decision.

January 25, 2006: The Court of Appeals handed down their decision, again denying the appeal by the Prosecutor General’s Office to overturn the Court of First Intention’s decision. The judges, in their 8 page decision, upheld the Court of Cassation decision of April 2005 and expanded on that decision (see details above). The case is criminal, George Najarian is the victim, and ordered the investigators to name the criminal. The decision details the many discrepancies and irregularities in the investigation.

The Court of Cassation (highest court) refused to hear an appeal of this decision. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals stands as law in Armenia.

May, 2006: Nearly 4 months have passed this decisive decision. The Prosecutor General’s Office has in theory reopened the case, but as far as Najarian knows, there has been no attempt to implement the other rulings of the Court.

NOTE: K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. have made more than 50 trips to Armenia and Artsakh since 1989. They are well-known in Armenia and the Diaspora for their humanitarian projects and various philanthropic activities including the following: 1) a Primary Care medical center in Gyumri, operating since 1994 which provides free care to elderly and chronically ill patient; and 2) the Arpen Center in Stepanagert, operating since 1995 which provides food, clothing, and food to pregnant women:1000 women are now receiving assistance each month and since its inception, approximately 9000 women have been helped.