by Manishak Baghdasaryan
In a move that has shocked the Armenian public and outraged the victim’s family, Armenian courts have taken the first steps toward releasing Mher Yenokyan, the man convicted of organizing the brutal 1996 murder of 19-year-old medical student Iosif Aghajanov.
On July 23, the First Instance Court of Yerevan, led by Judge Gnel Gasparyan, approved Yenokyan’s request for conditional early release, citing a “positive character reference” from the penitentiary and claiming that the convict had sufficiently reformed after 29 years behind bars. The final decision on his parole now awaits review by the Court of Appeals.
The parole decision was based on an internal prison report that cited his participation in sports and educational programs, including chess and volleyball tournaments, as signs of rehabilitation. However, the victim’s family argues that such indicators are superficial and fail to reflect moral accountability or genuine remorse.
In July 1996, Armenia was rocked by the disappearance and subsequent murder of Iosif Aghajanov, a first-year student at the Yerevan State Medical Institute. According to court documents, the murder was not a spontaneous act of violence– it was calculated and deliberately executed by Yenokyan and his accomplice, Aram Harutyunyan, who was also a student at the same university. The two lured Aghajanov under the pretense of a casual meeting. Once isolated, they brutally beat him, stabbed him multiple times, and hid his body. Afterwards, they attempted to take $20,000 from his grieving parents, claiming to have kidnapped their son.
Yenokyan was sentenced to death in late 1996, while Harutyunyan received a 15-year sentence. After the death sentence was banned in Armenian in 2003, Yenokyan’s sentence was changed to life in prison. Unlike his accomplice, who served his term and was released, Yenokyan has never accepted guilt and has shown no signs of remorse.
Yelena Aghajanova, Iosif’s sister, expressed outrage at the court’s ruling. “There is no sign of repentance. Just like before, he continues to insist on his innocence and portrays himself as a victim,” she told reporters. According to the family, Yenokyan had previously tried to pressure Harutyunyan into falsely confessing to the murder alone, writing letters asking him to “take the blame” since he had already served his sentence. She also criticized the parole process itself, saying, “They’re measuring ‘rehabilitation’ with sports tournaments and class attendance. But what about repentance? What about the scars on my brother’s body? Who represents the victim in this justice system?”
Yenokyan also has a criminal record behind bars. He escaped prison twice, undermining the idea that he poses no danger to society. Nonetheless, in recent years, he has actively campaigned for early release, especially after Armenia’s 2018 political transition. His wife, a former press secretary for the State Oversight Service, has reportedly played a role in fighting for his case and facilitating his transfer to a more lenient prison regime.
This case shows a deeper issue in Armenia’s justice system’s values. It questions where we need to draw the line between rehabilitation and accountability, and whether certain crimes, especially ones that have been premeditated and brutal, should ever be eligible for parole, and concerns over this are not unfounded. One such case is Ashot Manukyan, a former serviceman who had been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of three soldiers 24 years ago. He was conditionally released three years ago, only to be re-arrested for drug smuggling, according to Armlur. Such incidents have intensified concerns that premature releases may place society at further risk and erode public trust in the justice system.
