Supreme Court Appeals Filed in the Case of Sona Mnatsakanyan's Fatal Hit-and-Run by Pashinyan's Convoy

Supreme Court appeals have been filed against the verdict of Major Aram Navasarayan, who was involved in the fatal hit-and-run of pregnant woman Sona Mnatsakanyan by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's motorcade. Both the victim's side and the defense demand the annulment of the verdict sentencing Navasarayan to 1 year and 6 months in prison, which, according to the victim’s representatives, is evidently lenient and 'symbolic' for such a crime. The defense side is seeking justification. The public prosecutor, who had previously requested a sentence of 2 years and 6 months for Navasarayan, did not file an appeal against the verdict either in the appellate or supreme courts. The reporting judge is Hayk Grigoryan.

As reported earlier, the Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction in Yerevan, presided over by Judge Karen Farukhoyan, issued a ruling on August 18, 2025, finding Navasarayan guilty and sentencing him to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, a ruling which the Appellate Criminal Court upheld unchanged. One of the judges in the case, Robert Papoyan, has expressed a special opinion, finding that an additional automotive technical expert examination should be assigned in the criminal case.

Specifically, during the pre-trial proceedings on April 28, 2022, the investigator made a decision to conduct audiovisual and automotive technical examinations, commissioning them to the National Bureau of Expertise of Armenia. In the said decision, the investigator presented the following initial data regarding the danger faced by driver Aram Navasarayan (quoted): 'The danger arose for driver Aram Navasarayan at the moment when pedestrian Sona Mnatsakanyan, born on June 1, 1993, entered the driving path of the aforementioned vehicle, a Toyota Prado, from the central part of Paronyan Street.'

Based on the mentioned decision, on April 29, 2022, conclusion number 22-0960 was issued, from which it became clear that experts D. Dallakyan and S. Hambaryan had based their automotive technical examination on the initial data regarding the danger posed to the driver and drew appropriate conclusions, including regarding Navasarayan's violation of traffic regulations and the cause-and-effect relationship with the accident.

On July 1, 2022, the investigator decided to conduct additional audiovisual and automotive technical examinations, again commissioning them to the National Bureau of Expertise of Armenia. After reviewing the decision, the defense team submitted a written request to the pre-trial body to pose additional questions to the experts, including the following question (quoted): 'Under conditions where pedestrian Sona Mnatsakanyan alters her direction and pace of movement, at what point does the danger arise for the driver of the Toyota Prado, and from that moment on, does he have the technical ability to prevent the accident or not?'

This request from the defense was granted by the investigator's decision dated July 11, 2022. On August 2, 2022, the conclusion of the additional audiovisual and automotive technical examination was received, which stated that based on the newly obtained data from the accident scene, it was found that the pedestrian stood in the vehicle's traffic lane for 0.267 seconds and then moved backward for 0.935 seconds, covering a distance of about 1.5 meters.

Despite this fact, experts D. Dallakyan and S. Hambaryan, while conducting the automotive technical part of the examination, did not respond without justification to the question related to the danger posed to the driver, reiterating that their conclusions were based on the initial data provided by the investigating body, stating: 'According to the initial data provided for this additional comprehensive examination, the danger for the driver of the special-purpose vehicle Toyota Prado 505 II 01 arose when the pedestrian entered the vehicle's trajectory via the pedestrian crossing.'

In this regard, it should be noted that the investigator did not provide initial data regarding the moment of danger arising for the driver of the Toyota Prado. Other decisions from the investigator contain the content of the decision made on April 28, 2022, regarding the appointment of audiovisual and automotive technical examinations; however, the moment of danger arising should have been clarified through an additional comprehensive examination, as per the investigator's assertion.

On August 19, 2022, a decision was made to appoint a repeated joint audiovisual and automotive technical examination, which was later canceled by the supervising prosecutor's decision. Judge Robert Papoyan emphasized the importance of conducting the examination and clarifying the posed question, noting that considering the moment when the pedestrian entered the vehicle's traffic lane for assessing the driver's chances to prevent the accident, during the performance of three previously appointed examinations is unreasonable, since the pre-trial body itself had cast doubt on this circumstance.

The moment of danger arising for the driver of the special-purpose vehicle Toyota Prado 505 II 01 concerning pedestrian Sona Mnatsakanyan's shifting direction and pace should have been posed as a relevant question to experts. However, the response lacked the justification required by criminal procedural law. The judge concluded that the question of Navasarayan's guilt or innocence can only be determined after conducting an additional automotive technical examination.

It should be recalled that on April 26, 2022, around 6:05 PM, one of the vehicles from Nikol Pashinyan's government convoy struck Sona Mnatsakanyan, a 28-year-old pregnant woman, at the intersection of Leo-Paronyan-Proshyan streets. She was transported to Nairi Hospital, where she succumbed without regaining consciousness. The life of her unborn child could not be saved either. An eyewitness reported to journalists that the convoy left the scene and did not stop to assist the victim. The Investigative Committee also stated initially that the driver left the scene and returned only two hours later.

Nevertheless, Major Aram Navasarayan, known by the nickname 'I will beat Aram', was only charged under the second part of Article 242 of the RA Criminal Code for a hit-and-run resulting in death, with no charges related to leaving the scene of the accident. Later, the supervising prosecutor instructed to amend the charges to include Article 244, part one of the RA Criminal Code and a request for preventive detention as a measure of restraint under Article 130 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Initially, the investigator objected but eventually had to comply with the prosecutor's instruction, as the objections were rejected.

Navasarayan's charges were amended, and a detention request was submitted to the court, which was denied. The only defendant in the case is Aram Navasarayan, who is infamously known by his nickname. The victim's side believes that the pre-trial investigation has been conducted within a highly subjective and predetermined framework, focusing solely on the actions of accused driver Aram Navasarayan, preventing any claim of comprehensiveness in the investigation. Moreover, it has been revealed that vital evidence from the case, such as recordings, has gone missing.