concerning possible masterminds and accessories.

Yunoshev believes there are no grounds to the double rejection of his petition for Nairi Hunanian’s being transferred to the Ministry of National Security’s prison.

In his petition–he referred to the data that so far has not been studied by the court and has not been accepted as proof. Among the disregarded information–Yunoshev is attempting to present to the court information proving that Nairi Hunanian started cooperating with the Ministry of National Security as far back as 1988–which was confirmed by a reference on the inspection of the leader of the Union of Armenian Students.

This–according to the lawyer–testifies to at least "a certain interest" in Nairi Hunanian on the part of the Ministry of National Security–which–in turn–"is a solid ground" for transferring Hunanian from theremand prison of the Ministry of National Security.

Yunoshev once again mentioned his petition for the president of Armenia and the minister of national security (now minister of defense) asking that they be called as witnesses.

"During the preliminary investigation they were interrogated–but the bill of indictment did not include their names among those to be summoned to the court.

For uncertain reasons the investigation did not recognize them as witnesses," Yunoshev said.

Yunoshev criticized the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a conclusion is to be provided by an expert–but not by a specialist–whereas the highly experienced psychologist Nadezhda Taraplina–who was invited from Moscow–may only express her opinion–but not make an expert’s report.

The discussions of the issue was–as the lawyer pointed out–"the climax of disrespect."

Yunoshev said that the