U.S STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT ARMENIA
A1+
02:55 pm 09 March, 2006
The report entitled “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” is
submitted to the Congress by the Department of State in compliance
with sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (FAA), as amended, and section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended. The law provides that the Secretary of State shall
transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by February 25 “a
full and complete report regarding the status of internationally
recognized human rights, within the meaning of subsection (A) in
countries that receive assistance under this part, and (B) in all
other foreign countries which are members of the United Nations and
which are not otherwise the subject of a human rights report under
this Act.” We have also included reports on several countries that
do not fall into the categories established by these statutes and
that thus are not covered by the congressional requirement.
Armenia
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005 Released by the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 8, 2006
Armenia, with a population of approximately 3.2 million, is a
republic. The constitution provides for the separation of powers,
but the directly elected president has broad executive powers that
are relatively unchecked by the parliament (national assembly) or
the judiciary; the president appoints the prime minister, most senior
government officials, and judges at all levels. The 2003 presidential
and parliamentary elections were seriously flawed and did not meet
international standards. While the civilian authorities generally
maintained effective control of the security forces, some members of
the security forces committed a number of human rights abuses.
Although there were some improvements in some areas, the government’s
human rights record remained poor and serious problems remained. The
following human rights problems were reported: ~U
abridged rights of citizens to change their government ~U
hazing-related deaths in the military ~U
security force beatings of pretrial detainees ~U
national security service and national police force impunity ~U
arbitrary arrest and detention ~U
poor and unhealthy prison conditions ~U
limited right of citizens’ privacy ~U
limited press freedom ~U
self-censorship by journalists ~U
restrictions on religious freedom ~U
violence against women and spousal abuse ~U
trafficking in persons ~U
discrimination against persons with disabilities ~U
societal harassment of homosexuals ~U
reported forced and compulsory labor
On November 27, a series of constitutional amendments were approved by
a national referendum, and although the process was seriously flawed,
the amendments represented a step toward establishing a system of
democratic institutions with checks on the power of the president
and a more independent judiciary. By year’s end courts were more
actively pursuing charges and convictions against individuals under
the country’s antitrafficking statutes.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom
From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life The government and its
agents did not commit any politically motivated killings, although
there were some deaths in the military as a result of mistreatment.
The military prosecutor’s office investigated six deaths, three of
which were hazing related. The remaining cases were investigated,
but the prosecutor did not announce final results. While human rights
observers asserted there were considerably more unreported deaths
that were also hazing related, the prosecutor general denied these
assertions.
The Ministry of Defense reported there were 273 cases of cease-fire
violations along the border with Azerbaijan, resulting in 5 deaths
and 6 injuries, roughly matching the number reported by the press
during the year.
In contrast to previous years, there were no civilian deaths due
to landmines; however, the government reported six soldiers died
from injuries sustained from landmines. All parties involved in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had laid landmines along the 540-mile border
with Azerbaijan and the line of contact.
b. Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
The law prohibits such practices, although government security forces
employed them. Witnesses continued to report numerous cases of police
beating citizens during arrest and interrogation while in detention.
Most cases of police brutality went unreported because of fear of
retribution. Human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also
reported claims that police beat detainees during pretrial detention.
Although there was no current, reliable reporting on the full extent
of military hazing, soldiers reported to human rights NGOs that the
practice continued. During the year one local NGO estimated there were
seven hazing incidents; other local and international NGOs insisted the
number was significantly higher. Homosexuals, Yezidis (a non-Muslim,
Kurdish, religious-ethnic group), and Jehovah’s Witnesses also reported
that they were singled out for hazing by officers and other conscripts
(see sections 2.c. and 5). Authorities did not take any significant
measures to limit or stop the hazing.
The law allows detainees to file complaints prior to trial to
address alleged abuses committed by authorities during criminal
investigations. Detainees must obtain permission from the police or
the prosecutor’s office to obtain a forensic medical examination to
substantiate a report of torture. According to Human Rights NGOs,
however, authorities rarely granted permission for forensic medical
examinations and, by years end, there were no convictions for torture.
The government reported that 49 police officers received administrative
fines and two others faced criminal charges for their roles in 35
cases involving police brutality.
In November police reportedly beat opposition supporters detained
briefly following the marred constitutional referendum (see section
1.d.). There were no developments, and none were expected, in the 2004
attacks against Mikael Danielyan (see section 4) and Ashot Manucharian.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Prison conditions remained poor and posed a threat to health. Cells
were overcrowded, most did not have adequate facilities, and prison
authorities did not provide most inmates with basic hygiene supplies.
According to a June Civil Society Monitoring Board (CSMB) report,
prisoners remained at high risk of contracting tuberculosis, and
adolescents held in juvenile facilities rarely were provided with the
schooling required by law. The CSMB reported chronic problems including
denial of visitor privileges, medical neglect, and in the most extreme
cases, physical abuse. In certain jails, prisoners paid bribes to move
into single occupancy cells and to obtain additional comforts. There
were also unverified reports that authorities charged unofficial
fees to family members and friends delivering meals to inmates. In
some prisons, monitors noted that prisoners had difficulty mailing
letters and that some prison officials did not adequately facilitate
family visits.
CSMB monitors reported that female prisoners had more freedom of
movement, and that their facilities were cleaner and better equipped
and maintained than prisons for men.
The government permitted independent monitoring of prison conditions
by local NGOs and international human rights groups, including
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). In June 2004
the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) authorized the CSMB to visit prisons
without giving advance notice and, in practice authorities permitted
monitors to do so. Technically the ICRC and CSMB had access to all
detention facilities, including holding cells, prisons, and local
police stations to conduct independent monitoring and to meet with
detainees and prisoners. In practice the national police ministry did
not allow any local groups to monitor pretrial detention facilities
(suspects may be held up to three days without charge), where most
abuse was believed to occur. Police also denied CSMB monitors access
to pretrial detention facilities.
d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention The law prohibits arbitrary arrest
and detention; in practice, the authorities continued to arrest and
detain criminal suspects without warrants.
Role of The Police And Security Apparatus
The national police and the national security service (NSS) are
responsible for domestic security, intelligence activities, and
border control, and report directly to the prime minister. Both
services lacked the training, resources, and established procedures
to implement reforms or to prevent incidents of abuse. Prisoners
reported that police and NSS authorities did little to investigate
allegations of abuse. As a result, impunity was a serious problem.
NGOs and international human rights groups reported detainee abuse was
widespread, and there were no efforts underway to modernize or reform
police or security forces. Corruption also remained a significant
problem in the police force and security service.
National police officers routinely stopped motorists at roadside
checkpoints to extort unofficial fees. Motorists reported that traffic
police generally “charged” approximately $2 (1000 AMD) for passage
beyond checkpoints. Motorists who refused to pay were threatened
with hefty official fines, license and registration revocation, and
additional police harassment. Investigative journalists alleged that
police inspectors and superiors received a portion of the proceeds
from each traffic stop. As a result, there were no incentives and no
efforts underway to curb the practice.
Arrest and Detention
To make an arrest, prosecutors and police must first obtain a warrant
from a judge, except in cases of imminent flight risk or when a
crime is caught in progress. Judges rarely denied police requests
for arrest warrants, although police sometimes made arrests without a
warrant on the pretext that detainees were material witnesses rather
than suspects. According to the law, a detainee must be indicted or
released within three days of arrest, and this procedure was usually
followed in practice, although in some cases police skirted this
requirement by alleging suspects were material witnesses. Material
witnesses do not have the right to prompt judicial determination or
legal counsel. The law provides a bail system; however, most courts
denied requests for bail in favor of detention.
The law also requires police to inform detainees of their right to
remain silent, to make a phone call, and to be represented by an
attorney from the moment of arrest and before indictment (including
state-provided lawyers for indigent detainees). In practice, police
did not always abide by the law.
Police often questioned and pressured detainees to confess prior to
indictment when they did not have an attorney present. The law does
not guarantee witnesses the right to legal counsel or prompt judicial
determination and police exploited this loophole to interrogate
suspects in the absence of counsel or detain them beyond the three-day
limit for indicting suspects. Police sometimes restricted family
members’ access to detainees.
Unlike in the previous year, there was only nominal attendance at,
and little public attention to, rallies and demonstrations, and
arbitrary detention of protestors was not a serious problem. In the
week following the marred November constitutional referendum the
government detained, for several hours at a time, approximately 50
opposition supporters participating in modest opposition rallies.
Several detainees alleged police beat them while they in custody.
There were no reports of politically motivated arrests resulting in
continued detention at year’s end.
Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. According to the
law, a suspect may not be detained for more than 12 months awaiting
trial, but in practice this provision was not always enforced. Both
prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently requested and received
trial postponements on the grounds that they required more time to
prepare for trial. In some cases postponements were used as an excuse
to prolong interrogations.
The government reported that, at year’s end there were 317 pretrial
detainees accounting for approximately 11 percent of the 2879-person
prison population.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law provides for an independent judiciary. In practice, courts
were subject to political pressure from the executive and legislative
branches, and corruption was a problem.
The law provides for a three-tier court system, including the highest
court, the Court of Cassation, the court of appeals, and courts of
first instance. Most cases originate in courts of first instance;
appeals are lodged with the court of appeals and the Court of
Cassation. The constitutional court rules on the constitutionality
of legislation, approves international agreements, and rules
on election-related questions. The constitutional court can only
accept cases proposed by the president and approved by a two-thirds
majority of parliament, and cases on election-related issues brought
by parliamentary or presidential candidates. These limitations and
the general lack of judicial independence combined to prevent the
constitutional court from ensuring compliance with constitutional
human rights safeguards.
The president exercises dominant influence in appointing and dismissing
judges at all levels.
Trial Procedures The law requires that all trials be public except
when government secrets are at issue. Juries are not used in trials.
A single judge issues verdicts in courts of first instance, and a
panel of judges presides over the other courts. Defendants have the
right and are required to attend their trials unless they have been
accused of a minor crime not punishable by imprisonment (a civil
versus criminal misdemeanor). They also have access to a lawyer of
their own choosing, and the government provided a lawyer at public
expense to defendants upon request. More than half of all defendants
chose to argue their own case in court due to the perception that
public defenders colluded with prosecutors. Defendants may confront
witnesses and present evidence and they and their attorneys may
examine the government’s case in advance of trial. Judges generally
granted requests by defendants for additional time to prepare cases.
The law provides for the presumption of innocence; in practice this
right was not always observed. Prosecutors often did not begin a trial
if they believed they would not obtain a guilty verdict-resulting
in extended pretrial investigations and lengthy pretrial detention
(see section 1.d.). Both defendants and prosecutors have the right
to appeal. Prosecutors used confessions obtained under pressure,
which some NGOs asserted amounted to torture, as a central part
of their case. Defense lawyers may present evidence of torture to
overturn improperly obtained confessions, although defendants stated
that judges and prosecutors refused to admit such evidence of torture
into court proceedings even when the perpetrator could be identified.
Political Prisoners
There were no reports of political prisoners.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The law prohibits unauthorized searches and provides for the right to
privacy and confidentiality of communications; however, the government
did not always respect these rights in practice.
Under the law, authorities must present compelling evidence to
obtain permission from a judge to wiretap a telephone or intercept
correspondence. Nonetheless, in practice the law was not strictly
enforced and some judges arbitrarily granted permission.
At times police maintained surveillance of draft age men to prevent
them from fleeing the country.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
While the law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the
government partially limited freedom of speech. There were incidents
of violence, intimidation, and self-censorship in the press.
The Union of Armenian Aryans’ leader was found guilty of inciting
public hostility and given a three-year suspended sentence (see
section 2.c.). Most newspapers were privately owned with the exception
of government-sponsored Hayastani Hanrapetutyun and its Russian
language version Respublika Armenii. The independent media were
active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction,
but no newspaper was completely independent of patronage from
economic or political interest groups or individuals. Because of
low newspaper circulation, most people relied on television and
radio for news and information. Nationwide, there were fewer than
20 radio stations and more than 45 television broadcasters, most
privately operated. In the capital and regional cities, private
television stations offered generally independent news coverage of
good technical quality; however, the substantive quality of news
reporting on television and radio varied due to self-censorship by
journalists and the stations’ dependence on patronage. Major broadcast
media outlets generally kept to progovernment lines. Economic pressure
on broadcast media was more common than outright political pressure,
including authorities requesting bribes, and advertising revenues used
to influence programming. Senior officials within President Robert
Kocharian’s office continued to provide policy guidance to Public
Television of Armenia (H1). While its coverage was mostly factual,
H1 avoided editorial commentary or criticism of the government.
In 2003 Kentron TV, a progovernment national television channel was
awarded a broadcast frequency that belonged to A1Plus,one of the
country’s last independent television stations. Observers alleged
the decision was politically motivated, due to A1-Plus’ previous
criticism of the Kocharian administration. A1-Plus unsuccessfully
sought to resume broadcasting after losing its license in 2002.
International media outlets generally operated freely in the country.
However, RFE/RL broadcasts were periodically inaudible for three days
beginning on the day of the constitutional referendum. State-run
Armenian Public Radio claimed in a statement that the disruptions
were due to technical problems, but some observers alleged the
disruptions were politically motivated. RFE/RL did not lodge an
official complaint. Harassment of journalists remained a problem.
There were unconfirmed reports of incidents of harassment and
intimidation of journalists outside the capital.
In contrast with the previous year, there were no reports of police
beating journalists. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted in a public
document that one case involving possible violence against a reporter
was under investigation, although at year’s end the circumstances
surrounding the case were unclear.
A man sentenced to six months’ incarceration in October 2004 for
assaulting a journalist seeking to photograph property owned by a
member of parliament was immediately released.