Summary and Timeline of the Najarian case:

1996-1998: George Najarian invests in a photo shop – purchase of a store, its renovation, and purchase of equipment and materials totally nearly $150,000. Igityan, who is a partner in this venture, for his part provides the ‘physical work’ component to accomplish the above.

1998: Najarian purchases two parcels of land in Dzoraghough – part of the enthnographic site adjacent to the Parajanov museum, overlooking Ararat. Igityan acts as his representative and as construction manager. They have no partnership or work agreement. Since Najarian cannot own land under Armenia law, the land is purchased in other persons names, including Igityan. Eventually, he becomes the sole title holder using false claims to accomplish this – Najarian is not fully aware of what is going on. Igityan continues to reassure him – everything is safe with him.

2001: Igityan privatizes the land and buildings in his name under false pretenses – telling Najarian who is in Boston at the time, that if he doesn’t do this immediately, all will be lost.

2002 -2003: Jan thru June 2003 -- we (George Najarian) made attempts, in good faith, to negotiate payment to Igityan for his work (up to $100,000) and the turnover of the land and buildings to Najarian, who could now, by law, have ownership his name. Unsuccessful, Najarian encourages Igityan to seek an attorney so that they could negotiate in good faith. Igityan refuses; Najarian consult attorneys who inform his that he is the victim of fraud.

August 2003: Najarian filed a criminal complaint against Igityan. In Dec 2003, this complaint was denied and the case dismissed by the Yerevan Prosecutor's Office.

March 2004: Najarian personally appealed to then Prosecutor General, Arman Tamazyan to reopen the case: March 2004 the case is reopened in the Office of the Prosecutor General. Tamazyan apologized to Najarian for the poor quality of the investigation conducted by the Yerevan City prosecutor and promised a speedy resolution of the case. Week later, Tamazyan is removed and Aghvan Hovsepyan is appointed Prosecutor General.

Oct. 9, 2004: After nearly 9 months of ongoing investigation (11 volumes of testimony and evidence) the case is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

Series of court appeals
Dec. 25, 2004: Court of First Intention: Najarian’s appeal was heard and granted. The case is ordered reopened. George was proclaimed a 'victim of criminal activity, and the case was sent back to the investigators. The judge wrote that the investigators had not worked properly, had misinterpreted evidence, and orders the 11 volumes of evidence to be available to Najarian’s attorneys.

January 2005: the Prosecutor General appealed the decision to reopen the case.

March 10: Court of Review: The Prosecutor General’s appeal was heard and denied. The three judges of the next court found “…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 (see enclosure). The Court of Review based their decision on “…Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Protection of Basic Freedoms, and on the provisions of the Republic of Armenia’s Criminal Procedure Code…”

March 2005: The Prosecutor General again appealed the court’s decision.

April 2005: Carolann Najarian is in Armenia and meets with the Prosecutor General twice. She tells him that she knows his brother is involved in the case. He denies the charges. During the course of the meetings he infers that she should attempt to reconcile with Igityan again – making it clear to her that the case will never be prosecuted. Distraught and in a highly emotional state wanting to find a way out, Carolann put out feelers to Igityan through a mutual friend for a negotiated settlement. Igityan accepted the offer, but when they met two days later he informed her that he sold the larger building and therefore cannot return it – but will take $150,000 for the smaller building. Carolann ended the negotiations. This meeting was then used by the Prosecutor General’s Office to discredit the Najarians’ case – ‘how could you negotiate with a criminal?” they argued.

April 22, 2005: The Court of Cassation, Armenia’s highest criminal court: Prosecutor General’s appeal was heard and denied. The case ordered reopened saying that substantial evidence of criminal activity exists to prosecute the case. The court confirmed both lower court decisions stating the following: 1)George Najarian is the “aggrieved” party; 2) the criminal aspects of the case; 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. They also listed the contradictions in Igityan’s testimony that were accepted by the investigators. (The English translation of this decision is available upon request.)

Continuation of the investigation

May 21, 2005: Najarian received a fax from the chief investigator in the Prosecutor General’s Office notifying him that the case have been reopened, George Najarian is named the victim with all of the rights accorded to the ‘victim’ under Armenian law.

May-August 2005: The Prosecutor General’s investigators began recalling key witnesses applying pressure to force a change in their testimonies. Several were threatened with tax evasion charges and possible jail terms.

One of the key witnesses, the owner of a construction company, was interrogated for 7 hours and forced to sit face-to-face with Igityan, he was threatened with tax evasion charges. Since Najarian’s attorneys do not have access to these interrogations they only know what they are told. It appears that several people have been called in to gather information against the lead attorney, Ashot Boghosian. People such as Dr. Armen Piruzyan and Prof. Gurgen Melikyan have been called in repeatedly and questioned hours about their relationship with Boghosian in an attempt to discredit him. The Prosecutor General’s office has called Boghosian as a witness in an attempt to remove him as our lawyer; Boghosian has ignored the order to date.

The Prosecutor General’s investigators have informed our attorneys that Igityan has produced new documents to support his claims.

Harassment of other key witnesses continued as well.

July – Najarian’s attorneys ask the Prosecutor General to grant the rights accorded ‘victims’ to George Najarian – specifically to be present at interrogation of witnesses, to have the right to see evidence in the case. Requests were repeatedly ignored and eventually denied. Najarian also asks that Igityan be named the ‘suspect.’

August 16: Najarian appeals to the Court of First Intention to 1)grant the rights accorded to ‘victims’ and 2) to name Igityan the ‘suspect.’ Both requests are denied.

August 30, 2005: The Prosecutor General dismissed the criminal complaint citing lack of evidence.