The Implementation Of Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008) By Armenia

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 1609 (2008) BY ARMENIA

A1+
24 June, 2008

Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member
States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Georges COLOMBIER, France, Group of the European
People’s Party and Mr John PRESCOTT, United Kingdom, Socialist Group
________________________________________

Su mmary In Resolution 1609 (2008) on the functioning of democratic
institutions in Armenia, the Parliamentary Assembly set out four
concrete requirements for the resolution of the political crisis
that ensued after the presidential election in Armenia and resolved
to consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the
Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of the June 2008
part-session, if no considerable progress on the requirements was
made by then.

In the present report, the Monitoring Committee welcomes the progress
achieved by the Armenian authorities in addressing the Assembly
demands but notes that, despite the political will expressed by the
authorities, this progress is at present insufficient to meet the
requirements outlined in Resolution 1609.

While regretting the delay in implementing the concrete measures to
comply with the Assembly demands, the Monitoring Committee acknowledges
that the time given to the Armenian authorities was short. It therefore
proposes to the Assembly to review at its January 2009 part-session
the extent of Armenia’s compliance with the requirements made in
Resolution 1609.

If the requirements mentioned in Resolution 1609, as well as those set
in the present draft resolution are not met by then, the Monitoring
Committee proposes that the Assembly considers the possibility
of suspending the voting rights of the Armenian delegation to the
Assembly at the opening of its January 2009 part-session.

A. Draft resolution

1. On 17 April 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution 1609
(2008) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia. In
this resolution, the Assembly set out four concrete requirements
for the resolution of the political crisis that ensued after the
Presidential election in Armenia:

1.1. to revoke, in line with the recommendations of the European
Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (Venice
Commission), the amendments made, on 17 March 2008, to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations;

1.2. to initiate immediately an independent, transparent and credible
inquiry into the events on 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that
led to them;

1.3. to release all persons detained on seemingly artificial and
politically motivated charges who did not personally commit any
violent acts or serious offences;

1.4. to initiate an open and serious dialogue between all political
forces in Armenia on the reforms demanded by the Assembly in paragraph
8 of the Resolution with regard to the political system, electoral
process, freedom and pluralism of the media, freedom of assembly,
independence of the judiciary and police behaviour.

2. In Resolution 1609 (2008), the Assembly considered that Armenia’s
credibility as a member of the Council of Europe was put into doubt
as long as these conditions were not met and therefore resolved
to consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the
Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of the June 2008
part-session, if no considerable progress on the requirements was
made by then.

3. The Assembly welcomes that, in the immediate aftermath of the
adoption of Resolution 1609, several high-level representatives of the
authorities, including the President of the Republic and the Speaker
of the National Assembly, publicly expressed their political will
and intention to comply with the requirements of the Assembly.

4. As regards compliance by the authorities with the demands set out
in its Resolution 1609, the Assembly:

4.1. welcomes the adoption of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the
Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations
in line with Council of Europe standards and considers that the
requirement of the Assembly in this respect has been met by the
authorities;

4.2. reiterates its demand that freedom of assembly should also be
guaranteed in practice in Armenia. It therefore insists that the
Armenian authorities should now allow rallies to be organised by
the opposition without placing undue restrictions on them. In this
respect, it welcomes that the opposition rally of 20 June 2008 took
place unimpeded;

4.3. welcomes the constitution, albeit at a very late stage, of an ad
hoc committee within the National Assembly of Armenia to conduct an
inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008 as well as the circumstances
that lead to them;

4.4. welcomes the possibility for the inquiry committee to invite
national and international experts to participate in its work, which
should increase the credibility of its investigations;

4.5. considers that, as a result of the recent constitution of the
inquiry committee, the Assembly cannot evaluate, at this moment,
whether the criteria of independence, transparency and credibility will
be met. It also notes that the format and composition of the inquiry
committee do not per se guarantee its independence and impartiality
and therefore its credibility in the eyes of the Armenian public. The
Assembly therefore considers that the following conditions should
be met:

4.5.1. as a rule, the committee should work on the basis of consensus
and voting should be avoided, in particular as regards the subjects
the committee wishes to investigate and the persons it wishes to
hear. The working methods applied by the National Assembly Working
Group on the Reform of the Election Code, which as a rule takes its
decisions on the basis of a consultative vote, should be seen as an
example for the functioning of the inquiry committee;

4.5.2. the terms of reference of the committee should clearly state
that it has the right to investigate the circumstances that led to
the events of 1 March 2008, as well as the right to investigate the
events in its immediate aftermath, especially as regards the detention
of opposition activists and the charges that were brought against them;

4.5.3. the Human Rights Defender should be invited ex officio
to participate in the work of the committee with the right of a
consultative vote;

4.5.4. the possibility of extending the right of a consultative vote
to national and international experts who participate in the work of
the Committee on a permanent basis should be considered.

4.6. calls upon all political forces to participate constructively
in the work of the inquiry committee;

4.7. welcomes the recent developments with regard to the release of
persons seemingly detained on artificial and politically motivated
charges who did not personally commit any violent acts or serious
offences. However, it considers that progress on this issue is not
sufficient enough to ensure that the requirement of the Assembly is
fully met. In addition the Assembly considers that:

4.7.1. the cases still under investigation should be either closed
or brought before the courts with immediate effect;

4.7.2. the cases against those principally accused of crimes under
Articles 300 and 225 of the Criminal Code should be dropped unless
there is strong evidence that these persons have personally committed
acts of violence or serious other criminal offences;

4.7.3. a verdict based solely on a single police testimony without
corroborating evidence or independent witnesses cannot be acceptable;

4.7.4. the proposed amendments by the authorities to Articles 225 and
300 of the Criminal Code should be rejected by the National Assembly.

4.8. welcomes the series of initiatives taken by the authorities to
initiate a dialogue on the reforms demanded by the Assembly;

4.9. regrets that, also as a result of the decision of part of the
opposition to boycott the dialogue with the authorities, participation
of the opposition in the formulation of these initiatives has been
somewhat limited;

4.10. highlights that the modus operandi of the National Assembly
Working Group on the Reform of the Election Code could be an example
for the dialogue on other reforms demanded by the Assembly;

4.11. urges all political forces to seize the opportunity given by the
authorities to enter into an open, constructive and serious dialogue
on the reforms demanded by the Assembly.

5. The detention and conviction of persons in relation to the events
of 1 March 2008 will be a point of contention that will continue
to strain the relations between opposition and authorities and could
hinder the conduct of a constructive dialogue on the reforms needed for
Armenia. The Assembly therefore recommends that the National Assembly
adopts a general amnesty law or that the President of Armenia issues
a pardon decree with respect to all persons detained in relation to
the events of 1 March 2008, with the exception of those personally
involved in the tragic deaths that occurred on that day.

6. The Assembly takes note of the recent judgment of the European
Court of Human Rights finding a violation of the European Convention
of Human Rights in relation to the refusal of the Armenian authorities
to grant a broadcasting licence to A1+ TV station. The authorities
should now grant it a broadcasting licence without further delay,
in line also with a long-standing demand of the Assembly.

7. The Assembly welcomes the progress achieved by the Armenian
authorities in addressing the demands of the Assembly expressed in
Resolution 1609. However, despite the political will expressed by
the authorities, this progress is at present insufficient to meet
the requirements outlined in the resolution.

8. While regretting the delay in implementing the concrete measures to
comply with its demands, the Assembly acknowledges that the time given
to the Armenian authorities was short. The Assembly therefore decides
to review at its January 2009 part-session the extent of Armenia’s
compliance with the requirements made in Resolution 1609. If the
requirements mentioned in Resolution 1609, as well as those set above
in paragraphs 4.2, 4.5, 4.7 and 6 are not met by then, the Assembly
will consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the
Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of its January
2009 part-session.

9. The Assembly invites:

9.1. the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to speed up the
procedure for the appointment of a new Special Representative of
the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (SRSG) in Yerevan and
consider the possibility that a member of the SRSG’s Office be assigned
to monitor the work of the inquiry committee on a permanent basis;

9.2. the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe to
contribute to the participation of international experts in the work
of the inquiry committee of the National Assembly into the events
of 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that led to them, should the
conditions mentioned in paragraph 4.5 be met.

10. The Assembly will continue to follow closely the situation
in Armenia on the basis of information provided by its Monitoring
Committee, in particular as regards progress in the fulfilment of
the above-mentioned conditions.

B. Explanatory memorandum by Messrs Colombier and Prescott,
co-rapporteurs

Table of contents

I. Introduction

II. Fulfilment of the Assembly’s requirements

i. to revoke, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission
of the Council of Europe, the amendments made, on 17 March 2008, to
the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations

ii. to initiate an independent, transparent and credible inquiry into
the events of 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that led to them

iii. to release all persons detained on seemingly artificial and
politically motivated charges who did not personally commit any
violent acts or serious offences

iv. to initiate an open and serious dialogue between all political
forces in Armenia on the reforms demanded by the Assembly in paragraph
8 of the Resolution with regard to the political system, electoral
process, freedom and pluralism of the media, freedom of assembly,
independence of the judiciary and police

III. Conclusions

I. Introduction

1. On 17 April 2008, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1609 (2008) on
the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia. This resolution
was adopted following a debate under urgent procedure in the wake of
the political crisis that broke out after the Presidential election
in Armenia, on 19 February 2008.

2. In Resolution 1609, the Assembly set out four concrete requirements
to put an end to the crisis:

2.1. to revoke, in line with the recommendations of the Venice
Commission of the Council of Europe, the amendments made, on 17
March 2008, to the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies
and Demonstrations;

2.2. to initiate immediately an independent, transparent and credible
inquiry into the events on 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that
led to them;

2.3. to release all persons detained on seemingly artificial and
politically motivated charges who did not personally commit any
violent acts or serious offences;

2.4. to start an open and serious dialogue between all political forces
in Armenia on the reforms demanded by the Assembly in paragraph 8 of
the Resolution with regard to the political system, electoral process,
freedom and pluralism of the media, freedom of Assembly, independence
of the judiciary and police behaviour.

3. The Assembly considered that Armenia’s credibility as a member of
the Council of Europe was put into doubt as long as these conditions
were not met and therefore resolved to consider the possibility
of suspending the voting rights of the Armenian delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly at the opening of the June 2008 part-session,
in the absence of considerable progress on meeting the Assembly’s
demands by then.

4. In the wake of the adoption of Resolution 1609, the authorities
took several initiatives that clearly showed that the demands of the
Assembly were being taken seriously by them. In addition, high level
representatives of the authorities, including the President of the
Republic and the Speaker of the National Assembly, publicly expressed
their political will and intention to comply with the requirements
of the Assembly.

5. For its part, the opposition in Armenia generally welcomed
Resolution 1609 as a clear and concrete roadmap to resolve the
political crisis that ensued after the Presidential elections. The
main protagonist of the opposition, Mr Levon Ter-Petrossian, indicated
that he would be willing to enter into a dialogue with the authorities
on the requirements set by the Assembly, on the condition, however,
that all persons detained in relation to the events of 1 March be
first released.

6. By decree of the President of Armenia, a working group was set up
to co-ordinate the implementation of Assembly Resolution 1609. This
working group is composed of the Chief of Staff of the President,
the Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Justice, the Deputy
Prosecutor General and the members of the Armenian Delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly.

There was some controversy with regard to the conditions under
which the single opposition member in the Armenian delegation to
the Assembly, Mr Raffi Hovannisian, Chairman of the Heritage Party –
who had indicated his limited availability as a result of previous
engagements – could be replaced on the Working Group. Regrettably, as a
result of this, the involvement of the opposition in the deliberations
of this working group has been minimal.

7. Despite the different initiatives taken by the authorities, very
few tangible results have been achieved in the first one-and-a-half
months after the adoption of Resolution 1609. The Monitoring Committee,
meeting in Kyiv on 27 May, expressed its concern that time was running
out for the Armenian authorities to comply with the demands made by
the Assembly. As a result, the committee instructed its Chair to ask,
on its behalf, for a debate under urgent procedure during the June
2008 part-session of the Assembly if the co-rapporteurs, following
their planned visit to Armenia, concluded that insufficient progress
had been achieved by then.

8. We visited Armenia on 16 and 17 June 2008. During our visit, we
met with, inter alia: the President of Armenia and other high-level
government officials; the President of the National Assembly and
the leadership of the parliamentary committees involved in the
implementation of Resolution 1609; the Presidential Working Group
for the Co-ordination of the Implementation of Assembly Resolution
1609; representatives of both the ruling and opposition factions
in the Parliament; representatives of the extra-parliamentary
opposition; detained opposition leaders and their lawyers, as well as
representatives of civil society and the diplomatic community based
in Yerevan. We would like to thank the National Assembly of Armenia
and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe for the excellent programme and logistical
support provided during our visit. In addition, we would like to
express our gratitude to all persons and entities – both governmental
and non-governmental – that provided us promptly and extensively with
all information needed for our enquiries.

II. Fulfilment of the Assembly’s requirements

9. In the following sections we will give our assessment of the state
of implementation of the four conditions set up by the Assembly. This
assessment is based on our findings, as well as information received
before, during and after our visit.

10. On 15 April 2008, the authorities and experts of the Venice
Commission of the Council of Europe and the OSCE/ODIHR reached
an agreement on the changes needed to bring the Law on Conducting
Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations in line with Council
of Europe standards.

11. In line with this agreement, on 25 April 2008, the "Draft Law on
Amending and Supplementing the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies,
Rallies and Demonstrations"1 was sent by the Speaker of the National
Assembly to the Venice Commission for opinion. The Venice Commission
issued a generally favourable draft opinion2 on 16 May 2008. The draft
law passed in a first reading by the National Assembly of Armenia on 20
May 2008, following which further amendments were introduced to address
the concerns and comments of the Venice Commission. These amendments
were sent for opinion to the Venice Commission by the Speaker of
the National Assembly on 9 June 20083. An additional draft opinion4
on these amendments was issued by the Venice Commission on the same
day. The draft law was subsequently adopted in a second reading on
11 June 2008. This law was promulgated by the President of Armenia
on 16 June and entered into force the following day.

12. In the opinion of the Venice Commission, the amendments adopted
on 11 June bring the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies
and Demonstrations in line with Council of Europe standards and,
in some aspects, constitute an improvement over the original law.

13. The requirement that the 17 March amendments to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations be revoked
in line with Venice Commission recommendations has therefore been
met by the authorities. However, in article 8.4 of Resolution 1609,
the Assembly demanded that freedom of assembly be guaranteed in both
law and practice. The implementation of the law and the willingness of
the authorities to allow opposition rallies without undue restrictions
placed on them are therefore crucial to assessing Armenia’s compliance
with this requirement of the Assembly.

14. Representatives of Mr Ter-Petrossian’s Popular Movement of
Armenia informed us that, between 21 March and 14 June 2008, a total
of 42 requests for authorisation to hold rallies by his supporters
were refused by the authorities. A request by Mr Ter-Petrossian for
authorisation to hold a protest rally on 20 June 2008 on Liberty Square
– clearly intended to coincide with the start of the June part-session
of the Assembly and the possible debate on Armenia’s compliance
with Resolution 1609 (2008) – was rejected by the authorities. An
alternative venue proposed by the authorities, the parking lot of
a stadium on the edge of the city centre, was not accepted by Mr
Ter-Petrossian. During our fact-finding mission, we visited the
venue proposed by the authorities and came to the conclusion that
this could not be considered as a reasonable alternative.

15. We therefore called upon the authorities to propose other,
reasonable, alternative venues and stressed the importance of
allowing this rally without any undue restrictions as a signal that
the authorities are serious about respecting the principle of freedom
of assembly in practice. Equally, we called upon Mr Ter-Petrossian’s
camp to ensure that the demonstration would be conducted in a calm
and peaceful manner and to refrain from provocations.

16. We welcome the last-minute agreement between the authorities
and the opposition to hold the rally near the Matenadaran, one
of the venues requested by the opposition. We equally welcome the
restraint shown by both police and protesters to avoid clashes and
confrontations. However, we regret that this agreement was based on
a last-minute agreement between the organisers and the police and
not on an explicit authorisation to hold this rally by the Yerevan
city administration.

ii. to initiate an independent, transparent and credible inquiry into
the events of 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that led to them

17. While the authorities expressed their willingness to initiate an
independent inquiry as demanded by the Assembly, the exact format
for such an enquiry proved to be controversial and difficult to
agree upon. As a result, the decision on the format of an inquiry
commission was only taken very late, on 16 June, during our visit
to Yerevan. Opposition representatives, both inside and outside the
Parliament, complained that little, if any, consultation between the
authorities and the opposition had taken place on this issue.

18. The suggestion made in our previous report that this inquiry
could be conducted under the aegis of the Human Rights Defender was,
regrettably, not acceptable to the authorities. In our opinion, this
is related to the Ad Hoc Report on the Presidential Elections and
Post-Electoral developments which was published by the Human Rights
Defender on 25 April 2008. In this report, he raises questions about
the official version of the events of 1 March 2008 and he is highly
critical of the response of the authorities towards the protests that
ensued after the presidential election.

19. Finally, the format chosen for the conduct of this inquiry
is that of an Ad Hoc Inquiry Committee of the National Assembly
of Armenia. This committee has been constituted and its terms of
reference were adopted on 16 June 2008.

20. The inquiry committee is composed of 2 members from each of
the 5 factions in the current parliament, as well as 1 member
on behalf of the independent members of parliament. Furthermore,
the Resolution establishing the inquiry committee stipulates that
a representative of Mr Ter-Petrossian, as well as representatives
of other extra-parliamentary forces – on the basis of a list to
be decided upon at the first meeting of the committee – shall be
invited to participate in the work of the committee. However, these
members will only have a consultative vote. At its first meeting,
the committee decided to invite to participate in its work, besides Mr
Ter-Petrossian, representatives of all extra-parliamentary forces that
received at least 3% of the vote in the last parliamentary elections,
as well as representatives of all presidential candidates in the last
presidential election. In addition, the committee has the right to
invite, without the right to vote, national and international experts
to participate in its work.

21. The fact that 4 out of the 5 factions represented in parliament
belong to the ruling coalition raises questions with regard to the
possibility of the committee to conduct its inquiry independently
and impartially. Opposition representatives raised concerns that,
in practice, votes in the committee would be dominated by the ruling
factions. Proposals by the opposition that the committee should be
composed on the basis of parity between opposition and pro-government
forces or, failing that, that the decisions in the committee should
be taken on the basis of consensus, were rejected.

22. Invitations to provide experts to participate in the work of the
inquiry committee were sent, inter alia, to the Council of Europe, the
OSCE/ODIHR and the European Commission. We consider the participation
of international experts essential to ensure the credibility of the
inquiry. However, it is equally clear that international experts will
only be willing to participate if the independence and impartiality
of the inquiry committee is guaranteed.

23. Members of the committee, including those with a consultative
vote, have the right to present a dissenting opinion with regard to
the conclusions of the committee. This dissenting opinion will be
published as an integral part of the final report of the committee. In
order to guarantee the transparency of the inquiry, all meetings of
the committee will take place in public and be open to the press.

24. At its first session, the committee elected a representative
of President Sargsyan’s Republican Party as chairman of the
committee. The post of vice-chairman was offered to the opposition
Heritage Party. Opposition members questioned the impartiality of the
elected chairman, as he had in the past publicly expressed outspoken
opinions on who was to blame for the events of 1 March 2008. The
Heritage Party nominated as its representatives on the committee two
MPs who are currently detained after their immunity was lifted by
parliament. This cannot be considered as a constructive approach to
the important work of this committee.

25. The terms of reference of the committee5 state that it should
submit "recommendations for political and legal solutions with a view
of excluding the recurrence of such events [of 1 march 2008]". However,
the terms of reference do not explicitly give the committee the right
to investigate the circumstances that led to the events of 1 March
2008, as demanded by the Assembly. This should be clarified. Equally,
it should be clarified that an investigation into the events of 1
and 2 March include directly related events that took place in its
aftermath, such as the detention of opposition activists and the
charges that were brought against them for their role in the protests.

26. We welcome that an official enquiry has now been initiated, as
was demanded by the Assembly. However, the Assembly required that this
inquiry should be independent, transparent and credible. At this stage,
it is not possible for us to assess if these key requirements are met,
taking into account that, as a result of its late establishment,
the committee has not yet started its investigations and that its
format and composition do not per se guarantee its independence and
impartiality and therefore its credibility in the eyes of the Armenian
public. We consider that, in order to ensure the credibility of the
inquiry, as a minimum the following conditions should be met:

– as a rule, the committee should work on the basis of consensus
and voting should be avoided. This is especially so in relation to
the subjects the committee wishes to investigate and the persons it
wishes to hear. The working method of the National Assembly Working
Group on the Reform of the Election Code, which as a rule takes its
decisions on the basis of a consultative vote6, should be seen as an
example for the functioning of the inquiry committee;

– the terms of reference of the committee should be clarified in line
with § 24 of this report;

– the Human Rights Defender should be invited ex officio to participate
in the work of the committee with the right of a consultative vote;

– the possibility of extending the right of a consultative vote to
national and international experts who participate in the work of
the Committee on a permanent basis, should be considered.

27. We call upon all political forces to participate constructively in
the work of this committee, and, where appropriate, re-evaluate their
representatives on it, in order to ensure the maximum credibility of
the inquiry.

iii. to release all persons detained on seemingly artificial and
politically motivated charges who did not personally commit any
violent acts or serious offences

28. The detention of persons on seemingly artificial and politically
motivated charges in relation to the events of 1 March 2008 was one of
the main concerns of the Assembly when adopting Resolution 1609 (2008)
and their release one of the most pressing demands by the Assembly.

29. Initially, very few tangible results were achieved in relation to
this requirement and arrests were reported to continue until early
June. However, in the last couple of weeks before our visit, the
situation seemed to be evolving at a rapid speed. As a result of the
intense activity by the authorities in this field, the information we
received regarding the persons detained and/or released was repeatedly
changing during our stay and was at times confusing and/or seemingly
contradictory7.

30. Based on the information received by the authorities, 116 persons
were detained in relation to the events on 1 March 2008. Of these
116 cases, 28 cases are still under investigation and 88 cases
have been brought before the courts. Of the 28 persons still under
investigation, 17 remain in detention on remand and 11 have been
conditionally released subject to the obligation not to leave the
country. Of the cases sent to court, 3 persons were acquitted, 22
received suspended sentences and 14 persons were sentenced to prison
terms. In 49 cases, a verdict is still pending. Of these cases, 38
persons remain in detention and 11 have been released subject to the
obligation not to leave the country pending trial.

However, different sources of information also received from the
authorities indicate that 17 persons remain in custody pending
investigations, 13 have been released from detention pending
investigation, 17 cases have been suspended and the persons released,
while 68 cases have been transmitted to the courts.

31. During a meeting with Mr Ter-Petrossian, we were provided with
a list of 63 persons who, according to him, remain in detention. Of
these persons, 24 have already been convicted to prison terms8. We have
provided this list to the authorities with the request to provide us
information on each of the cases mentioned in this list. However, due
to the short time available, the authorities were not able to provide
us with this information, nor was it possible for us to cross-check
each of the cases with other information provided to us. It seems
that a number of persons on this list have since been released.

32. The authorities informed us that, in total, 65 persons pleaded
guilty to the charges brought against them either during investigation
or trial. A number of persons who confessed were given suspended
sentences under a plea bargaining agreement, while persons who did not
admit their guilt on similar charges were convicted to several years in
prison. A significant number of persons who confessed may therefore
have done so to avoid lengthy prison sentences, especially in an
atmosphere of low public confidence in the independence of the courts.

33. It was reported to us that a number of persons were charged
and their cases transmitted to the courts on the basis of a single
police testimony without corroborating evidence or testimony from
independent witnesses. While it was not possible to verify these
allegations during our short stay, we are concerned, as they raise
questions about the possibility for a fair trial of those arrested
in relation to the events of 1 March 2008.

34. A significant number of persons have been charged under Article 300
(usurpation of power) and Article 225 (mass disorder and incitement
to mass disorder) of the Criminal Code. As mentioned in our previous
report, these articles are problematic as they allow for broad
interpretation, leave excessive discretion to the prosecutor and
"fail to give clear guidance on the dividing line between legitimate
expressions of opinion and incitement to violence". In general,
prosecutors have applied standardised language in the charges that
were made under these Articles and judges would appear not to have
subjected them to a serious test.

35. We were informed that a significant number of persons who were
arrested under these provisions had additional criminal charges
brought against them at a later stage. This could indicate an attempt
to circumvent the demand of the Assembly to release persons charged
with seemingly artificial and politically motivated charges by accusing
them of having "personally committed violent acts or serious offences".

36. We are especially concerned regarding the three detained members
of parliament whom we visited in prison. All three were arrested
and had their parliamentary immunity lifted for alleged violation
of Articles 300 and 225. However, until today, their cases have
not been transmitted to court. In addition, under Article 17 of the
Constitution of Armenia, members of parliament can only be arrested in
flagrant delict. However, all three were arrested after the events of
1 March 2008, which would indicate that their constitutional rights
were violated during their arrest. Their treatment raises questions
about the fairness of the treatment of those who do not benefit from
the visibility and immunity linked to a parliamentary status.

37. While we welcome the recent progress in meeting this requirement of
the Assembly, we cannot consider that it has so far been satisfactorily
met. The cases still under investigation should be either closed or
transmitted to the courts with immediate effect. The cases against
those principally accused of crimes under Articles 300 and 225
should be dropped unless there is strong evidence that these persons
have personally committed acts of violence. In addition, it should
be clear that a verdict based solely on a single police testimony,
without corroborating evidence or independent witnesses’ testimonies,
cannot be acceptable.

38. Taking into account the number of questions raised in this respect,
an investigation into the role of the prosecution in the detention
of opposition activists, as well as the charges brought against them,
should be an integral part of the mandate of the independent inquiry
committee.

39. It is clear to us that the detention and conviction of persons
in relation to the events of 1 March 2008 will continue to strain
the relations between the opposition and the authorities and hinder
the chances for a constructive dialogue between them.

We would therefore strongly recommend that the National Assembly
considers adopting a general amnesty law or that the President of
Armenia issues a pardon decree for all persons detained in relation to
the events of 1 March 2008, except from those who have been personally
involved in the tragic deaths that occurred on that day.

40. The authorities have proposed amendments to Articles 225 and 3009
which would make them considerably wider in scope. In the opinion of
the Venice Commission10, the proposed amendments are too broad and
open to abuse. They could, in effect, limit freedom of expression
and assembly. We therefore welcome the fact that the Legal Affairs
Committee of the National Assembly of Armenia has given a negative
opinion on these amendments and decided not to propose them for
adoption.

41. We welcome the series of initiatives taken by the authorities to
initiate a dialogue on the reforms demanded by the Assembly.

42. A key requirement of the Assembly was that such a dialogue should
be open and serious and carried out among all political forces in
Armenia. However, a number of opposition representatives felt that
their involvement in the formulation of these initiatives had been
limited. We realise that this is also the result of the decision of
Mr Ter-Petrossian, as well as of most of the political forces that
support him, to boycott a dialogue with the authorities until all
political activists detained in the context of the events of 1 March
2008 have been released. We understand that, besides its obvious
political motivation, this position also results from the fact that
a large part of the leadership of his movement, who would normally
represent this movement in the negotiations with the authorities,
are still in detention. Nevertheless, we urge all political forces
to seize the opening given by the authorities and to enter into an
open, constructive and serious dialogue on the reforms demanded by
the Assembly.

43. In this respect, we wish to highlight the positive example of the
manner in which the dialogue on the reform of the electoral process
is being conducted.

The working group of the National Assembly, especially set up for this
purpose, has extended a consultative vote to all representatives of
extra-parliamentary political forces and civil society organisations
that participate in its work, and in principle takes its decisions on
the basis of a consultative vote. In our opinion, this modus operandi
should be an example for the dialogue on the other reforms demanded
by the Assembly, as well as for the inquiry committee to investigate
the events of 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that led to them.

44. An in-depth analysis of the proposed reforms is outside the scope
of this report. Their assessment will take place in the framework of
the normal monitoring procedure of the Assembly. However, we would
like to highlight in sum the different initiatives taken, in addition
to those we have already mentioned in previous paragraphs.

45. With regard to the reform of the political system with a view
to giving a proper place and rights to the opposition11, amendments
were passed on the rules of procedure of the National Assembly. These
amendments provide for, inter alia, the distribution of all leadership
positions on the Standing Committees of the Assembly on the basis of
the d’Hondt system, which will ensure opposition representation in
these leadership functions; the right of the opposition to table an
issue for debate during one of the sittings of each four-day regular
sessions; the introduction of the presentation of a minority position
in the reports of the Standing Committees that are sent for debate
in plenary session; and priority for opposition representatives in
tabling questions to the government. We welcome these initiatives
that will strengthen the role of the opposition in the work of the
parliament, but note that some of the provisions will only come into
force after the next convocation of the National Assembly. We would
suggest that the National Assembly consider implementing them at
a much earlier stage. In addition, in order to strengthen the role
of the opposition, reforms are also needed outside the framework of
the rules of procedure of the National Assembly, most notably in the
electoral system and media environment.

46. With regard of the reform of the electoral process12, we already
mentioned the setting up of a special working group of the National
Assembly for the reform of the Election Code. Extra-parliamentary
political forces and NGOs are participating in the work of this
committee, which is formulating a series of amendments to the
code. These amendments will be sent to the Venice Commission for
opinion. We understand that the opinion of the Venice Commission will
be the basis for possible further reforms needed.

In relation to this issue, we would like to reiterate the position
of the Assembly that the effect of any amendments to the Election
Code on the conduct of democratic elections will squarely depend on
their full implementation in good faith.

47. With regard to the media reform13, a public hearing was
organised by the relevant committee of the National Assembly in which
representatives of the governmental authorities, civil society and
extra-parliamentary opposition were invited to participate. On the
basis of this hearing, a legislative package has been prepared and sent
to the competent sectors of the Council of Europe for opinion. The
hearing concluded that further dialogue between the authorities and
the opposition is needed to overcome a lack of public trust in the
current media environment.

48. In this context, we take note of the recent judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights, which found a violation of the European
Convention of Human Rights in relation to the refusal of the Armenian
authorities to grant a broadcasting licence to A1+.

The granting of a licence to this independent and popular TV
channel has been a long-standing demand of the Assembly. We urge the
authorities to grant the broadcasting licence to this channel without
further delay.

49. Further to the Assembly’s demand to strengthen the independence of
the judiciary14, the President of the Republic signed an order under
which a committee is set up under the auspices of the Minister of
Justice, which is entrusted with the development of a comprehensive
reform plan for the judiciary. It should be noted that judicial
reform is also part of the coalition programme on which the current
government is formed. We would like to stress the importance of
opposition participation in these reforms.

50. As regards arbitrary arrests and the need to reform the police
forces15, the President of the Republic has made significant changes
to the police leadership and has dismissed several high police
officers, including the National Chief and Deputy-Chief of the
Police. In addition, the President has instructed that a strategic
reform of the law enforcement bodies be drawn up. In this respect,
we would like to stress the need to provide for an effective public
control mechanism over the police, as demanded by the Assembly. This
important issue was not addressed in the information we received from
the authorities during our visit.

III. Conclusions

51. We welcome the progress achieved by the Armenian authorities in
addressing the requirements of the Assembly set out in Resolution 1609
(2008). However, despite the political will shown by the authorities
to comply with the Assembly demands, this progress has not so far
been sufficient enough to effectively meet the requirements set out
in this resolution.

52. We regret the delay in implementing the concrete measures demanded
by the Assembly, but we also acknowledge that the time given to the
Armenian authorities was short.

53. As a result, it is not possible for us to assess whether the
initiatives taken by the authorities fully comply with the Assembly
requirements, for instance as far as the independent, transparent
and credible inquiry into the events of 1 March 2008 is concerned.

With respect to other requirements, further and continued progress
is still required to ensure full compliance.

54. In this respect, we note that the continued detention of persons
arrested in relation to the events of 1 March is a point of contention
that will continue to strain the relations between the authorities
and the opposition with the potential to undermine the possibilities
for dialogue and reform.

Further action from the authorities in this field is clearly needed. At
the same time, we call upon the political forces that currently boycott
the dialogue with the authorities to reconsider their position and
seize the opportunity offered by the authorities.

55. In view of the above, we propose to the Assembly to review at the
January 2009 part-session of the Assembly the extent of the Armenian
authorities’ compliance with the requirements set out by the Assembly
in Resolution 1609 (2008). In addition, we recommend that a number
of additional issues be addressed to ensure that the demands of the
Assembly are met both in spirit and in practice. If these requirements
are not met by the opening of the January 2009 part-session, we will
have no other option than to propose applying the sanctions mentioned
in Resolution 1609 (2008).

* * *

Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee)

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997)

Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 23 June 2008

Members of the committee: Mr Serhiy Holovaty (Chairperson),
Mr Gyorgy Frunda (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Konstantin Kosachev
(2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Leonid Slutsky (3rd Vice-Chairperson),
Mr Aydin Abbasov, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Milo~Z
Aligrudić, Mrs Meritxell Batet Lamaña, Mr Ryszard Bender,
Mr Jozsef Berenyi, Mr Aleksandër Biberaj, Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr
Jean-Guy Branger, Mr Mevlut Cavuşoglu, Mr Sergej Chelemendik, Ms
Lise Christoffersen, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Georges Colombier,
Mr Telmo Correia, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mrs Herta Daubler-Gmelin,
Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Juris Dobelis, Mrs Josette Durrieu, Mr
Matyas Eorsi, Mrs Mirjana Ferić-Vac, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto,
Mr Jozsef Gedei, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Charles Goerens, Mr Andreas
Gross, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Holger Haibach, Ms Gultakin Hajiyeva,
Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Raffi
Hovannisian, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr Milo~Z Jevtić, Mrs Evguenia
Jivkova, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Ali Rashid Khalil, Mr Andros Kyprianou,
Mr Jaakko Laakso, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mr Goran
Lindblad, Mr Rene van der Linden, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Younal Loutfi,
Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Bernard Marquet, Mr Dick
Marty, Mr Milo~Z Melčak, Mrs Assunta Meloni, Mrs Nursuna Memecan,
Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, Mr Theodoros Pangalos, Ms Maria Postoico,
Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr John Prescott, Mr Andrea Rigoni, Mr Dario
Rivolta, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr Oliver Sambevski,
Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Andreas Schieder, Mr Samad Seyidov, Mrs Aldona
Staponkienė, Mr Christoph Strasser, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze, Mr
Mihai Tudose, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Mr
Jose Vera Jardim, Mrs Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Piotr Wach,
Mr Robert Walter, Mr David Wilshire, Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mrs Karin
S. Woldseth, Mr Boris Zala, Mr Andrej Zernovski.

N.B.: The names of the members who took part in the meeting are
printed in bold

Secretariat of the committee: Mrs Chatzivassiliou, Mr Klein, Ms
Trevisan, Mr Karpenko ________________________________________

1 CDL(2008) 050

2 CDL(2008) 051

3 CDL(2008)078

4 CDL(2008)079

5 We are basing our comments on the terms of reference on a provisional
translation of the National Assembly Resolution establishing the
inquiry committee.

Therefore, the issues we mention here may be clear in the original
text. We would like to thank the National Assembly for providing us
promptly with a translation of the Resolution.

6 In addition, in this working group, a consultative vote is also given
to experts and representatives of civil society that participate in
its work.

7 Another example of the rapidly evolving situation was the fact that
we were informed that a number of persons had been released while
their defence lawyers we met were not yet aware of this.

8 Mr Ter-Petrossian’s list includes 9 persons arrested in the period
between 29 January and 1 March. If deducted, this would bring the
number of persons sentenced to firm prison sentences close to that
provided by the authorities.

9 CDL(2008)063

10 CDL-AD(2008)017

11 Resolution 1609 (2008) § 8.1

12 Resolution 1609 (2008) § 8.2

13 Resolution 1609 (2008) § 8.3

14 Resolution 1609 (2008) § 8.5

15 Resolution 1609 (2008) § 8.6

–Boundary_(ID_0vkdIuaA9DXl1FxAVh9iQg)–