FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief
===============================================
Thursday 6 June 2013
ARMENIA: NEW LEGAL AMENDMENTS TO END CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR JAILINGS?
Nine and a half years, and about 275 prisoners of conscience, after Armenia
should have by January 2004 introduced a civilian alternative to compulsory
military service, human rights defenders and conscientious objectors are
hoping this Council of Europe commitment will be met. The change comes in
new amendments to the Alternative Service Law, and to the Law on
Implementing the Criminal Code, which come into force on 8 June. “Our main
concern was that alternative civilian service should not be under military
control,” Jehovah’s Witness lawyer Artur Ispiryan told Forum 18 News
Service. “This appears to have been resolved.” Ispiryan and human rights
defenders Stepan Danielyan of Collaboration for Democracy and Avetik
Ishkhanyan of the Armenian Helsinki Committee stress that how the legal
changes are implemented will be crucial. “This will need close monitoring”,
Ishkhanyan told Forum 18. Concerns include the Defence Ministry’s role in
decisions on applications for alternative service, unclear wording of some
articles, and the length of alternative service.
ARMENIA: NEW LEGAL AMENDMENTS TO END CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR JAILINGS?
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service
Nine and a half years, and about 275 prisoners of conscience, after Armenia
should have by January 2004 introduced a civilian alternative to compulsory
military service, human rights defenders and conscientious objectors are
hoping this Council of Europe commitment will finally be met. The change
comes in new amendments to the 2003 Alternative Service Law and to the 2003
Law on Implementing the Criminal Code. “Our main concern was that
alternative civilian service should not be under military control,”
Jehovah’s Witness lawyer Artur Ispiryan told Forum 18 News Service from the
Armenian capital Yerevan on 5 June. “This appears to have been resolved.”
But both he and human rights defenders Stepan Danielyan of Collaboration
for Democracy and Avetik Ishkhanyan of the Armenian Helsinki Committee
point to other possible concerns. These include the Defence Ministry’s role
in decisions on applications for alternative service, unclear wording of
some articles, and the length of alternative service.
All three stress that how the legal changes are implemented will be
crucial. “All will depend on where young conscientious objectors are sent
to serve, and how they will react to the provisions on offer,” Ishkhanyan
told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 5 June. “This will need close monitoring.”
The amendments to the Law on Implementing the Criminal Code should allow
the 33 young men imprisoned for refusing military service, the six more who
have been convicted and await imprisonment, the further six whose trials
have begun and the 29 young men who are being investigated for prosecution
to apply to be transferred to alternative civilian service, Forum 18 notes.
What are the changes?
The main changes introduced by the amendments to the Alternative Service
Law and the Law on Implementing the Criminal Code are:
– Two types of alternative service
The Alternative Service Law in Article 5, as previously, allows two types
of alternative service. Both apply only to young men:
a.) “Alternative military service” for 30 months which is not connected
with bearing, keeping, maintaining or using weapons;
and b.) “Alternative labour service” for 36 months not connected with the
armed forces.
Article 3.1 makes alternative labour service open to all young men with a
conscientious objection to military service, whether they are religious or
not, Ishkhanyan of the Armenian Helsinki Committee told Forum 18.
Armenia previously required all young men to perform two years’ military
service. Since the Alternative Service Law entered into force in 2004,
those called up could instead apply for alternative service under military
control, which lasted up to 42 months. This did not meet Council of Europe
commitments or satisfy many conscientious objectors (see F18News 3 December
2012 ).
The reduction in length from 42 months of alternative service under
military control to the 36 months of alternative labour service is welcomed
by Danielyan of Collaboration for Democracy, Ishkhanyan of the Armenian
Helsinki Committee and Ispiryan of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But they note
that this is 50 per cent longer than military service. “I believe this
should be at most six months more than military service,” Ishkhanyan told
Forum 18.
– Applications
To apply for alternative service, an applicant must in person go to their
local Military Commissariat and submit a written application within a
specified time period. Within 30 days of the application being registered,
the Regional Military Commissariat shall ascertain under the Conscription
Law whether the applicant can be either exempted from military service or
given deferred military service. If not, the application must be sent to
the Republican Committee.
Article 3.2, as previously, does not allow individuals once they are
performing either military or alternative service to change their minds and
transfer to the other. “We haven’t had such a case of an individual
performing military service changing their views and wanting to transfer to
alternative service,” Jehovah’s Witness lawyer Ispiryan told Forum 18. “But
this could be an issue.”
– Decisions
Decisions on alternative service applications are made by the “Republican
Committee”. Under Article 4 this is a standing committee made up of one
representative each from: the Territorial Administration Ministry; the
Healthcare Ministry; the Labour and Social Affairs Ministry; the Education
and Science Ministry; the Police; the Defence Ministry; and the Department
for Ethnic Minorities and Religious Affairs.
Danielyan of Collaboration for Democracy, Ishkhanyan of the Armenian
Helsinki Committee and Ispiryan of the Jehovah’s Witnesses raise questions
over the composition of the Republican Committee and the vagueness over the
way it is supposed to operate. “What if the Defence Ministry representative
ends up having the decisive voice?” Danielyan pointed out.
Article 8 states that applicants must be notified in advance of the time
and location of the meeting at which their application will be decided on,
and they can attend this meeting. The Republican Committee can require the
applicant to be present.
“Religious studies experts, psychologists and other professionals,
representatives of the locations where alternative service is performed,
religious and social organisations, and others persons can”, under Article
18.2, “be invited to the Republican Committee’s meeting.” However, there is
no indication of the basis on which such invitations shall be issued. For
example, Article 18.2 might allow a religious leader of one faith to have
an input into a decision on the application of someone from a different
faith. “The role of such individuals and what input they might give remains
unclear,” Ispiryan notes.
Applications must under Article 8.1 be decided upon by the Republican
Committee within one month. Decisions are valid if voted for by two thirds
of participating members, if more than half of the seven Committee members
are present. Such decisions must be sent to the applicant and the relevant
Regional Military Commissariat within 10 days.
The Republican Committee also decides on the type of alternative labour
service to be performed by successful applicants. Possible types of work
are decided on by the government, but no indication is given of which part
of the government makes this decision.
– Grounds for decisions
The Republican Committee can under Article 9 reject alternative service
applications if:
“1) The citizen who applied for alternative service has been invited twice
to the meeting of the Regional Conscription Committee and failed to appear
for unjustifiable reasons, or;
2) The applicant has submitted false information;
3) The application is obviously groundless.”
“It remains unclear on what basis the Republican Committee will take its
decisions,” Danielyan of Collaboration for Democracy told Forum 18. “It is
difficult to foresee how this provision will be applied,” Jehovah’s Witness
lawyer Ispiryan told Forum 18. “Conscientious convictions are hard to
prove.”
– Appeals
The amendments to the Alternative Service Law do not lay down any appeal
procedure or conditions. They merely state in Article 8.1.4 that “if the
Republican Committee makes a decision to reject the application, it must
state the basis for doing so and the procedure for appealing against the
decision”.
– Alternative labour service conditions
Article 14 states that alternative labour service is performed in state
agencies, Article 14.3 stating that there will be “no military
supervision”, Article 14.2 indicating that “supervision of the performance
and organisation of alternative labour service is carried out by state
agencies”.
Jehovah’s Witness lawyer Ispiryan particularly welcomes the declaration
that there can be no military supervision of alternative labour service,
which was introduced into the Alternative Service Law amendments between
the first and second readings.
However, Article 17.1 states that under Article 13 alternative labour
service workers “appear before the Military Commissariat to depart for
alternative service”, travelling to the alternative service location at
their own expense. The location of this should, under Article 17.4, be no
more than 30 kilometres (19 miles) away or expenses will be reimbursed.
But Article 14.2 states that “the head of the organisation where the
alternative labour service is carried out .. decides his type of work, the
regulations and conditions, and within three days notifies this in writing
to the Military Commissariat”. Article 14.3 states that “an alternative
labour worker can be transferred to another organisation or another place
of service upon agreement or initiative of the Republican Committee”.
Article 18.1 lays down that: “the Director of the place of alternative
labour service familiarises the worker with the rules of internal
discipline of the organisation and the details of the work to be
performed”. Article 18.2 requires the Director “to ensure the same working
conditions for the alternative labour worker, as they would be required to
provide for a contracted or employed worker who does the same kind of
work.”
Article 21.3 states that: “Alternative labour workers shall be held
responsible for unauthorised leave of absence from the place of service in
the same way prescribed by law for compulsory military service servicemen”.
– Current prisoners of conscience allowed to apply for transfer
Changes to the Law on Implementing the Criminal Code allow people convicted
of conscientious objection who are serving their sentence, or have been
paroled, or whose sentence was not applied conditionally, to apply before 1
August 2013 to perform alternative service. If this is granted their
criminal records will be removed.
Prisoners must apply to the administration of their prison. Time they have
already served counts towards the total required length of alternative
service. “The prison administration tells them within seven days if the
transfer is approved or not,” Jehovah’s Witness lawyer Ispiryan told Forum
18. “But it does not make clear who takes the decision.”
He also notes that a prisoner nearing the end of a two-year sentence might
choose not to apply for alternative service, as they would then have to
conduct just over a year of alternative civilian service to reach the new
specified length of such service of three years.
“It is a bit unfair that prison time counts exactly the same as alternative
service time,” Ispiryan told Forum 18. “But each individual will decide for
themselves whether to apply for a transfer. This is of course a personal
decision.”
– Past criminal records removed
The amendments to the Law on Implementing the Criminal Code allow
individuals convicted for conscientious objection to military service to
apply to have their criminal records expunged.
Compensation?
The amendments do not address the issue of compensation for conscientious
objectors who have been imprisoned. Twenty former imprisoned conscientious
objectors have gained compensation from the government, though only after
securing findings in their favour in four separate cases at the European
Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg (see below).
A further 26 Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objectors – 23 of them still
in prison – lodged their own cases to the ECtHR between December 2011 and
December 2012, Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18.
Amendments approved
After delaying since joining the Council of Europe in January 2001,
Armenia’s Justice Ministry finally prepared amendments to provide
alternative civilian service in 2012. These were then presented to
Parliament (see F18News 3 December 2012
). Justice Minister
Hrair Tovmasyan presented the two sets of amendments to Parliament on 27
February 2013. On 18 March, deputies approved both in the first reading
with 103 in favour and just one (Deputy Shushan Petrosyan of the ruling
Republican Party) against. In the second (and final) reading on 2 May, 65
deputies voted in favour and two against, the parliamentary website notes.
The amendments were signed into law by President Serzh Sarkisyan on 21 May.
Both amendments enter into legal force on 8 June, the government’s legal
database notes.
Alternative civilian service unavailable – up till now
Although Armenia committed itself on joining the Council of Europe to
introduce a civilian, non-military alternative service by January 2004, it
failed to do so. It also pledged to release all those imprisoned for
refusing military service in the interim, but continued with a policy of
imprisonment (see eg. F18News 20 September 2012
).
A total of 33 Jehovah’s Witnesses are currently serving prison terms under
Criminal Code Article 327, Part 1 of between two and three years’
imprisonment. The longest serving prisoner is Harutyun Mnatsakanyan, given
a three-year prison sentence in August 2010. All are being held in prisons
in Kosh, Nubarashen or Erebuni.
Of the approximately 275 young men who have been convicted and imprisoned
to punish them for their conscientious objection to military service in the
past decade, all but one have been Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ishkhanyan notes.
The other – Pavel Karavanov – was a Molokan, a member of an early Russian
Protestant-style Christian community.
“In the Soviet period Seventh-day Adventists, Molokans and Pentecostals
often opposed military service,” Danielyan told Forum 18. “After
independence in 1991, some of these were forcibly conscripted. But now
these communities don’t object to military service, though some individuals
within them might choose alternative civilian service.”
Of all the former Soviet republics which still punish those who cannot
serve in the armed forces on grounds of conscience, Armenia has had by far
the highest rate of imprisonment for objectors. Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan
and Belarus – as well as the unrecognised entity of Nagorno-Karabakh in the
south Caucasus – have all imprisoned conscientious objectors in recent
years. Council of Europe member Turkey also imprisons conscientious
objectors, in defiance of ECtHR judgments (see a personal commentary, by
Derek Brett of Conscience and Peace Tax International, on conscientious
objection to military service and international law at
).
Strasbourg compensation
In four separate cases, the ECtHR in Strasbourg has found the Armenian
government to have violated the rights of conscientious objectors. In a
landmark case, the court ruled in July 2011 in favour of former
conscientious objector prisoner Vahan Bayatyan. The ECtHR handed down two
similar judgments against Armenia – in cases brought by Hayk Bukharatyan
and Ashot Tsaturyan – in January 2012 (see F18News 1 February 2012
).
In November 2012, the ECtHR – in its fourth decision against Armenia in
conscientious objector cases – found that Armenia had violated the rights
of 17 Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objectors. For the first time in such
cases, Armenia’s European Court Judge, Alvina Gyulumyan, did not dissent
from the judgment.
The November 2012 judgment awarded compensation of 6,000 Euros to each of
the 17 conscientious objectors. The government was also required to pay a
total of 10,000 Euros in costs for all the applicants (see F18News 3
December 2012 ).
This judgment became final on 27 February 2013, with compensation payable
by 27 May. The government allocated the funds to meet the 112,000 Euro
total at its 8 May meeting. It paid the compensation in mid-May, the
Justice Ministry and Jehovah’s Witnesses both confirmed to Forum 18.
Strasbourg cases to continue?
The 26 conscientious objectors who lodged further cases at the ECtHR in
Strasbourg have not been approached by any government official in the wake
of the two sets of amendments approved in May, Jehovah’s Witness lawyer
Ispiryan told Forum 18.
“All 26 were convicted after the court’s judgment in the Bayatyan case,” he
added. “Government officials have made them no offers over reaching a
friendly settlement. So the cases are likely to continue.” (END)
More coverage of freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Armenia and
the unrecognised entity of Nagorno-Karabakh is at
A personal commentary, by Derek Brett of Conscience and Peace Tax
International, on conscientious objection to military service and
international law in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ July
2011 Bayatyan judgment is at
.
A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at
.
A printer-friendly map of Armenia is available at
.
All Forum 18 News Service material may be referred to, quoted from, or
republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as the
source.
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at
From: A. Papazian