US embassy cable - 05YEREVAN281

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000281 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/CACEN, EUR/PRA AND NP/PTR (CURRY) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/16/2015 
TAGS: KNNP, MNUC, PARM, PREL, AM, GG 
SUBJECT: ARMENIA: URANIUM SMUGGLER CONVICTED, THEN RELEASED 
 
REF: 04 YEREVAN 2140 
 
Classified By: CDA A.F.Godfrey for reasons 1.4 (b, d) 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
1.  (S/NF) On 15 December 2004, Garik Dadayan, an Armenian 
citizen, was convicted of attempting to smuggle radioactive 
material across state borders.  Samvel Mnatsakanian, the lead 
prosecutor in the case, said that because of  the weakness of 
evidence and poor cooperation between law enforcement and 
intelligence, Dadayan was given a sentence of only two and a 
half years.  Mnatsakanian said that without the consistent, 
strong USG pressure on the system, Dadayan might have been 
aquitted.  Because of time served in a lengthy pre-trial 
detention, Dadayan was released in early February. 
Mnatsakanian claimed Dadayan is now in Nagorno-Karabakh.  End 
Summary. 
 
2.  (S/NF) As described in reftel, Dadayan was arrested on 
June 26, 2003 on the border between Georgia and Armenia.  He 
was found to be in possession of small amounts of substances 
which were later determined (by the USG) to be highly 
enriched uranium (HEU).  We met recently with Samvel 
Mnatsakanian, the lead prosecutor in the Dadayan case to 
follow-up. 
 
3.  (S/NF) Mnatsakanian lamented the poor cooperation between 
law enforcement and intelligence services both in Armenia and 
Georgia in the months immediately following Dadayan's arrest. 
 He claimed that the intelligence services were overconfident 
that the threat of conviction would coerce Dadayan to confess 
and to turn over the rest of the network through which he had 
obtained the HEU.  This overconfidence led to sloppy work: 
the crime scene was not properly documented, the chain of 
evidence was broken repeatedly and witness statements were 
incomplete.  When it became clear that Dadayan would not 
provide information on how he obtained the HEU, intelligence 
services dumped the case on the Prosecutor's office and 
insisted on a conviction.  Mnatsakanian admitted that without 
heavy pressure from the USG on both the judge and the 
Prosecutor General's office, Dadayan might not have been 
convicted at all.  He appreciated the USG support in 
providing an authoritative technical analysis and also in 
ensuring the presence of some Georgian witnesses. 
 
4.  (S/NF) Mnatsakanian said that Dadayan had been found 
guilty on three counts: smuggling material across state lines 
(Russia-Georgia), attempting to smuggle material 
(Georgia-Armenia) and unlawful possession of radioactive 
material.  Mnatsakanian said he had asked the judge for a 
sentence of not less than three years.  The judge, he 
explained, said he would convict, but would only give a 
sentence of two and a half years.  Mnatsakanian said the 
judge wanted to avoid an appeal which would likely have 
resulted in an acquittal.  Because Armenian law allowed for 
early release for good behavior and counts each day served in 
pre-trial detention as a day and a half of post-conviction 
jail time, Dadayan would be eligible for release almost 
immediately after conviction.  Because an appeal process 
would have been lengthy and would have involved additional 
pre-trial detention, Dadayan did not appeal, said 
Mnatsakanian.  Dadayan was released from prison in early 
February.  Mnatsakanian claimed that Dadayan was now resident 
in Nagorno-Karabakh. 
 
5.  (S/NF) Mnatsakanian reminded us that the court had still 
not made a final decision regarding the evidence provided to 
the USG for analysis by the Government of Georgia. 
Technically, he explained, the GOAM has jurisdiction over 
this evidence because it was cited in the case against 
Dadayan.  To close out the case, Mnatsakanian said the judge 
will write a letter to the Embassy asking the USG to dispose 
of the evidence.  No response from the USG would be expected. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
6.  (S/NF) Given the weakness of this case, we were pleased 
to get a guilty verdict against Dadayan, although we are 
dismayed that he is already at liberty.  We were not 
disinterested observers.  Armenia's judicial system is weak 
and open to outside influence and we pushed hard.  We 
appreciate the support received from other USG agencies, 
especially the authoritative analysis of the HEU, which was 
essential to the case.  The Armenian National Security 
Service was responsive to our requests for assistance and 
investigation, but these efforts took place after the initial 
seizure.  While we cannot judge the level of cooperation of 
Georgia's intel services with the judiciary, we share 
Mnatsakanian's frustration at the poor coordination at the 
time of Dadayan's arrest. 
GODFREY