[Documents/Docheader.htm]Implementation of Resolutions 1361 (2004) and 1374 (2004) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia
Doc. 10286
20 September 2004Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Co-Rapporteurs:Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia, Poland, Socialist Group, and Mr Ren� Andr�, France, Group of the European People’s Party
Summary
This report takes stock of the implementation of the last two Resolutions adopted by the Assembly in January and April 2004. Relations between the Assembly and the Armenian authorities continue to be characterized by excellent co-operation and the Armenian authorities have committed themselves to a series of reforms. That being said, a number of delicate issues remain. In particular, the report underlines that Armenia has not yet taken appropriate measures to remedy the defaults of the last elections. The report proposes that the Assembly take note of steps taken or which are in the course of implementation in a certain number of crucial areas and recalls that speedy progress is still awaited, notably concerning the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, amelioration of the conditions of detention, developments in the media sector, duration of alternative civilian service and registration of the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I. Draft resolution [Link to the adopted text]
1. Armenia was the subject of Assembly debates on its democratic future on 27 January 2004 and 28 April 2004 respectively and the country embarked upon further reforms following Resolutions 1361 (2004) and 1374 (2004).
2. The Parliamentary Assembly expresses satisfaction at its excellent co-operation with the Armenian authorities, their open-minded attitude and the quality of the ongoing dialogue on compliance with obligations and commitments.
3. The Assembly is pleased to note that Armenia has complied with the request to submit a report on paragraphs 9.i to 9.vi of Resolution 1374 (2004) and takes note that :
i. peaceful demonstrations continue to be authorised and that the authorities have refrained from any action which would legally, or in practice, lead to unjustified restrictions to the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights;
ii. the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement and laws provide for maintenance of public order;
iii. the investigations on the incidents and human rights abuses reported during the recent events, including assaults on journalists and human rights activists, were led and information was provided to the Assembly on their findings and of any legal action taken against persons responsible;
iv. the persons detained for their participation in the demonstrations were released and an end to the practice of administrative detention is expected as the Administrative Code is in the process of being amended;
v. the authorities have taken note of the fact that the immunities of members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are valid for the whole year (Resolution 1325 (2003) and Recommendation 1602 (2003)).
4. Despite Armenia’s declared wish to reach a peaceful solution with Azerbaijan to the Nagorno-Karabakh situation, the Assembly is forced to conclude that no tangible progress has been achieved for the past year, whether at the level of the direct talks between the presidents of the two countries, which are continuing, or at the level of the Minsk Group.
5. The Assembly recalls that it had asked for a thorough investigation into electoral fraud in the 2003 elections and for an end to the judicial impunity of those responsible. In this connection, the Assembly considers that it has not received a convincing reply from the authorities. It is confident, however, that the process of revising the Electoral Code will soon be completed, in keeping with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
6. It notes that legislative measures have been taken in order to introduce into the Criminal Code a provision on conditional release for all persons convicted of serious offences, including persons with life sentences.
7. It notes that the constitutional revision needed to ensure that certain commitments are fully honoured is making good progress. It asks that the authorities should rapidly prepare draft amendments to the Constitution, present them to the Council of Europe in 2004 for expert appraisal and organise a referendum as soon as possible and in any event by June 2005 at the latest. This revision will make it possible for the Armenian National Assembly to confirm the appointment of the human rights ombudsman.
8. The Assembly takes note of the timetable for effective implementation of the basic reforms concerning the judicial system and the independence of the judiciary and of the intention to adopt the law on the status of judges, the law on the judicial council and the law on the judiciary before the end of 2004.
9. The Assembly notes that the last amendments to the Law on Radio and Television request that the National Broadcasting Commission should add arguments when awarding broadcasting licenses, thus preventing the adoption of arbitrary decisions.
10. With regard to its other requests, the Assembly notes the steps taken to:
i. continue discussion of the question of administrative detention in the Administrative Code in co-operation with the Council of Europe’s experts in order to end administrative detention;
ii. adopt a law on demonstrations and public assemblies in co-operation with the experts of the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission;
iii. amend the Criminal Code in order to introduce the possibility of conditional release for prisoners serving life sentences;
iv. revise, in co-operation with the Council of Europe’s experts and with due regard to the recommendations already made and those yet to be made, Articles 135, 136 and 318 of the Criminal Code in order to remove any possibility of making insult and defamation subject to a prison sentence ;
v. revise the law on the police in co-operation with the Council of Europe’s experts;
vi. adopt a law on the status of Yerevan, a law on territorial autonomy, a law on local government staff and a law on local self-government;
vii. combat corruption and sign the Civil Law Convention on Corruption; it asks that this Convention be ratified within the shortest possible time;
viii. grant an amnesty to conscientious objectors who are serving prison sentences and release those who refused to perform military service.
11. Furthermore, the Assembly is expecting rapid progress concerning:
i. the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with the standards of the Council of Europe;
ii. improvements to conditions of detention and, in that connection, the implementation of the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT);
iii. the developments in the media sector in Armenia: it expects that, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Law on radio and television, the composition of the National Broadcasting Commission will be renewed as soon as possible and that fair conditions for awarding broadcasting licenses to televisions, in particular to A1+ television channel, will be created;
iv. the excessive length of the period of alternative civilian service, which has been set at 42 months;
v. the registration of the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses;
vi. the creation of an independent body representing all Armenia’s religious organisations and communities.
12. In the light of the foregoing, the Assembly calls on the Armenian authorities to continue to take appropriate measures to honour the remaining obligations and commitments set out in Resolutions 1361 (2004) and 1374 (2004).
II. Explanatory memorandum by the co-rapporteurs
Introduction
1. The Assembly adopted Resolution 1361 (2004) and Resolution 1374 (2004) in January 2004 and April 2004 respectively. The first resolution took note of the progress made in the honouring of obligations and commitments and called on the Armenian authorities to undertake or complete other reforms. The second resolution, adopted after a debate under urgent procedure, expressed the Assembly’s concerns following the events that had taken place in the country in March and, especially, early April 2004. Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia, one of the rapporteurs[1], visited Armenia from 11 to 15 June 2004, on the one hand to see what had been done in response to the Assembly’s requests related to the events and, at the same time, elucidate what had really happened, and on the other to take stock of the monitoring procedure and review the state of co-operation between the Council of Europe and the Armenian authorities. The co-rapporteur thanks the parliamentary delegation and the Armenian authorities for the excellent way in which the visit was organised. He also wishes to thank the Special Representative of the Secretary General, Ms Natalia Voutova, for her valuable co-operation, and the German ambassador in Armenia, for the meeting with ambassadors.
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
2. In its Resolution 1361 (2004) of January 2004, the Assembly called on the Bureau to consider how “regional” parliamentary dialogue and co-operation could be restored and progress as soon as possible. A meeting was held in this connection on 17 May 2004, on the sidelines of the Conference of Presidents of Parliaments, but its results are unknown. The Secretary General of the Assembly subsequently visited the three south Caucasian countries, from 29 June to 5 July 2004. He will have the opportunity to report on his visit at the next Bureau meeting.
3. High-level bilateral contacts, whether between ministers for foreign affairs or presidents, have been maintained and will continue. However, there are no signs of any progress in the discussions, with both parties merely able to record their disagreement[2]. The President of Armenia explained his country’s official position in his address to the Assembly in June 2004. He repeated the explanation given to the co-rapporteur, namely that “Nagorno-Karabakh had never formed part of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan. Consequently, the question of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan did not arise. After the break-up of the USSR, two states had been formed: Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. If the rights claimed by Nagorno-Karabakh were considered unfounded, an explanation other than that of territorial integrity needed to be found. Armenia gave priority in all cases to the principle of self-determination”. The same position was expressed by the other officials with whom the co-rapporteur had talks, in particular the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
4. Clashes took place along the border between the two countries during the co-rapporteurs’ visit, causing the death of an Armenian soldier. The armed forces of the breakaway republic held military exercises at the beginning of August; these can only be regarded as futile, meaningless provocation as long as Armenia fails to prove to the co-rapporteur precisely what imminent danger Azerbaijan represents for the survival of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh and the provinces under the administration of the self-proclaimed, breakaway Republic of Mountainous Karabakh[3]. The same applies to the holding of local elections in this territory on 8 August 2004, described by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in a press release as “counterproductive”[4].
5. The co-rapporteur studied with interest the Political Affairs Committee’s draft report on the “conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh dealt with by the Minsk Conference of the OSCE”. The process monitored by the OSCE has reached such an impasse that they consider this title highly inappropriate.
6. The talks held by the co-rapporteur did not provide any evidence suggesting that Armenia is not seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict. The co-rapporteur personally believes that it is indisputable that Armenia has no claim on the seven provinces of Azerbaijan which are situated outside the boundaries of the former autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The co-rapporteur, in agreement with the co-rapporteurs on the honouring of Azerbiajan’s obligations and commitments, considers that these territories should be returned to Azerbaijan before any referendum is held, because the people who fled these provinces en masse must be able to return there before any consultation can take place. The timing of the return of the territories should not be decided unilaterally by Armenia, but should be the subject of a joint decision by the two countries.
7. In addition, still in the diplomatic sphere, the co-rapporteur regrets Armenia’s involvement in the recent declaration by CIS countries criticising the OSCE’s activities in the human rights field[5]. This position has also been criticised within the country by a number of NGOs and reflects the weakness of the policy of Armenian national independence, contrasting sharply with the kind of policy the government wishes to display in the above-mentioned conflict.
Previous elections and reform of the Electoral Code
8. Following harsh criticism from local and international observers concerning the conduct of the presidential elections of February and March 2003, the Constitutional Court, while validating the election results in April 2003[6], recommended that parliament pass a law on referendums providing in particular for the possibility of calling a referendum of “confidence” in the legally elected president. This recommendation which appeared in paragraph 6 of the text of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court, was used by the opposition to attempt to make the Parliament adopt amendments to the Law on Referendum. In fact, according to the opposition, this recommendation was a decision in proper form, which should be obligatory to the Parliament. In February 2004, however, the Parliament refused to discuss this question. It was this decision which upset everyone and made the opposition demonstrate in the streets and boycott the work of Parliament. The co-rapporteur thinks, with the President of the Constitutional Court, that this item of the text of the 2003 Ruling was a recommendation and not in fact a decision. It is regrettable that the Constitutional Court which has no power to make recommendations had not thought of the consequences which its Ruling was likely to provoke.
9. This being the case, although the legitimacy of the Presidential elections has been established, there have not been any serious investigations into the allegations of electoral fraud observed by the Constitional Court in 2003, and there are no signs of an end to the judicial impunity enjoyed by those responsible[7]. The President of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) did admit to the rapporteur that the elections had not been perfectly organised, but refused to acknowledge that violations had taken place and even expressed the opinion that such violations would not have changed the outcome. The only action taken by the CEC was to provide the staff of the electoral commissions and polling stations with two leaflets on the proper organisation of elections…
10. Furthermore, despite the fact that the CEC does not have the right to initiate legislation, it submitted proposals to the National Assembly for amending the electoral law. According to these proposals, the National Assembly should take account of the recommendations made by the Venice Commission, which criticised the old law, and by the Constitutional Court. The parliamentary opposition, for its part, refused to take part in the debate in parliament on the amendments to the electoral law and sent its own draft electoral law, along with draft laws on other subjects, to the Venice Commission. Such an initiative is highly questionable: the co-rapporteur wishes to stress that the divisions between the opposition and the majority must be resolved within the Armenian Parliament and that the Council of Europe, and in particular the Venice Commission, should not be misused as arbiters in a domestic political conflict. He therefore calls on the Armenian opposition to take part in the parliamentary debate on the proposed revision of the electoral law, as would be the case in any other democratic state. In August 2004, both the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR were asked by Parliament to carry out expert appraisals of the proposed revision of the electoral law. One opinion has been received on 6 September 2004.
11. Lastly, a new, “rolling” electoral register was to be ready by July 2004. Responsibility for this register now lies with the visa and passport department.
Dialogue between the majority and the opposition
12. The Armenian parliamentary opposition, consisting of 24 members of the National Assembly (total membership: 131) belonging to two parliamentary groups[8], has been boycotting parliamentary debates since parliament refused to discuss a possible amendment to the law on referendums. The only issue on which the opposition and the majority have seen eye to eye lately is that of the settlement of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, the opposition is not boycotting all committee meetings, visits by foreign delegations and visits to other countries by delegations from the Armenian National Assembly.
13. Owing to this crisis, Armenia was beginning to fall behind in the adoption of the reforms needed to honour its obligations and commitments. Parliament has therefore gone ahead and framed draft laws without the participation of this group of opposition members, who have prepared their own draft laws and submitted them to the Venice Commission. These are the above-mentioned draft electoral law, a draft constitution, amendments to the law on broadcasting and amendments to the law on referendums.
14. The ruling coalition and the opposition attempted to establish a common platform for dialogue in May 2004 to make it easier to comply with the Assembly’s requests, but the discussions foundered over the question of the points to be dealt with. The attempt therefore failed.
15. The polarisation of Armenian society does not seem to have quietened down. This antagonism, which several commentators have described as “fratricidal”, can in practice only weaken both sides. It seems obvious that the government is holding out a hand to the “opposition”. So far, the opposition has not responded to these offers, the complete “return” to parliament of the members who are currently boycotting it being conditional on acceptance of their initial demands. The majority in Parliament and the Government should continue to enhance the dialogue and the opposition must, for its part, stop making unrealisable and counterproductive demands.
16. The co-rapporteur urges that the two sides to resume their consultations when parliament reconvenes and the opposition which has been boycotting parliament to cease to do so.
Revision of the Constitution
17. According to the authorities, the revision of the Constitution is in progress. The proposed amendments to the Constitution were published in August 2004. At the time of writing of this report, the Venice Commission was waiting for these proposals to be forwarded to it, as soon as they had been translated. The revision is to be completed by the end of 2004, with a view to the holding of a referendum in 2005. It is essential with regard to new laws which have been passed but which depend on it for their implementation. This applies, for example, to the law on the Ombudsman: the Ombudsman who has been appointed by the President of the Republic, Ms Larisa Alaverdyan, has to have her appointment confirmed by three-fifths of the members of parliament, but this cannot be done until the Constitution has been revised. The other three laws concerned are those relating to the media, the independence of judges and the status of Yerevan.
18. A reform of the Constitution requires a referendum to be called by the President of the Republic, at parliament’s request. The constitutional amendments must be approved by a two-thirds majority[9].
Reform of the justice system
19. Judges in Armenia are guaranteed to retain their posts until the age of 65, and may only be dismissed in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The President guarantees the independence of the judiciary.
20. The Minister for Justice said that he hoped the judicial system could be reformed in one go by combining three draft laws into one[10]. The first and second readings could be held in autumn 2004.
21. The provision of the Administrative Code concerning administrative detention[11], which enables a person to be held in prison for a fortnight, has often been called into question by NGOs, the OSCE and especially the Council of Europe. The Assembly has called several times for its abolition. It would seem that progress is being made towards that goal, although the minister, while acknowledging that this is a key component of the reform, considers that this particular reform will be more difficult to push through. The sections of the Administrative Code requiring amendment were referred to the Council of Europe in June 2004 for an expert appraisal[12], with a view to the submission of amendments and adoption of the amended code by October 2004. The same procedure was adopted with regard to the law on the police.
22. The amendments to the Criminal Code concerning the abolition of life imprisonment for certain serious offences were adopted in June 2004. As far as the co-rapporteur knows, these amendments have not yet been forwarded to the Council of Europe’s experts. Besides, conforming to Resolution 1361 (2004) of January 2004, the rapporteur notes with satisfaction that regulations have been introduced in order to allow life-sentence prisoners to apply for conditional discharge from prison, in particular those for whom the death penalty had been waived[13].
The problem of corruption
23. One issue on which the new president and the government are particularly active is that of the fight against corruption. The rapporteur sensed a genuine change of attitude on the part of the Armenian authorities. As a sign of this political will to wage an effective war against corruption, the president issued a decree on 1 June 2004 establishing a Council to Fight Corruption, chaired by the prime minister. This council supervises the activities of a monitoring committee set up to implement anti-corruption strategy, that is, amongst others, following up implementation of international instruments of recommendations of international organisations concerning the fight against corruption. The co-rapporteur congratulates the authorities on having included civil society in this body. The General Prosecutor also set up a special department to fight corruption in May 2004.
24. In a country in which corruption is virtually an institution, implementation of the new council’s fight against this phenomenon will be essential. Armenia has not ratified the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, neither the Civil Law Convention on Corruption; she acceded to the enlarged agreement of GRECO; however, no observation visit by GRECO is foreseen at this stage of the second round of evaluation (2003-2005).
25. The Armenian economy is showing an improvement and the government is very hopeful of attracting more foreign investors thanks to the confidence they are expected to have in the government’s economic policy. An economy free from corruption will certainly be of great assistance in the attainment of this objective.
Torture and ill-treatment; conditions of detention
26. The co-rapporteur wishes to point out that Armenia is obliged to eradicate torture on its territory under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the regional instruments to which it is party, namely the ECHR and the CPT.
27. The CPT published its first report on Armenia on 28 July 2004, following a visit to the country in October 2002. The CPT found that persons detained by the police in Armenia run a significant risk of being ill-treated, and called for urgent steps to be taken to improve in particular the conditions of detention of persons serving life sentences at Nubarashen Prison. In response to this report, the authorities stated that they were endeavouring to improve police training and conditions of detention at Nubarashen. The co-rapporteur hopes that these measures will be implemented quickly.
28. For his part, the rapporteur visited the Vanadzor detention and isolation centre in the province, whose inmates include both persons in pre-trial detention and sentenced persons. Vanadzor is in a disastrously run-down state. The conditions of detention there are appalling, as the building is very old and has not been renovated. The prison authorities have found a new site for the detention and isolation centre in the same town but the construction cannot begin until funds have been obtained. Fortunately, Vanadzor is not overcrowded. Some of its inmates are young deserters from the army. The prison administration denied allegations, which had come to the rapporteur’s attention, that prisoners had gone on hunger strike. Torture and ill-treatment inflicted on persons in custody at Vanadzor, which led to the death of Lieutenant-Colonel Artush Ghazamyan, resulted in charges being brought against several officers and their being sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from one to ten years. The co-rapporteur notes with satisfaction that it was due to the initiative of the Presidential Commission of Human Rights that this procedure had been commenced. Both the doctors of the prison who had denied torture being used were also condemned.
29. Lastly, the rapporteur heard about the case of the President of the “Helsinki” Association, who was severely beaten by unknown assailants[14]. The General Prosecutor’s Office, having failed to establish the identity of those responsible, discontinued the proceedings as soon as 1 June 2004, probably rather too rapidly.
Freedom of expression and the media
30. The situation regarding the media still gives cause for concern. Newspapers are regularly found guilty in court and ordered to pay heavy fines for publishing defamatory articles about prominent figures in or close to the government. Unfortunately, acts of violence against journalists continue. In addition to the physical assaults, electronic equipment is sometimes damaged. The journalists then receive compensation from the courts for the destruction of property and the violation of their physical integrity, as happened on 10 June 2004 in the case concerning Hrayr Harutyunyan and Ashot Avetisyan[15].
31. The situation with regard to the electronic media is equally alarming. The national broadcasting commission continues to refuse to grant licences in Yerevan to the television channels A1+TV and Noyan Tapan TV, on the ground that they do not meet the technical requirements. Kentron TV, which had taken over the licence from A1+ two years previously, has also stopped broadcasting since May 2004 and has been replaced by Aravot TV[16]. The Russian channel NTV was no longer able to broadcast after the events of 12-13 April, and the commission announced on 14 June 1004 that the frequency was free and had been allocated to the Russian channel Kultura TV. In January 2004, the commission granted a licence to Yerkir, managed by the Armenian diaspora, despite the fact that, according to its chairman, there were no longer any frequencies available in Yerevan and the existing licences were not due to expire until 2009. The chairman of the commission, Mr Amalyan, stressed that no television channel in Armenia had been forced to stop broadcasting. There is no doubt in the rapporteur’s mind that the situation of the electronic media is highly dependent on political and economic considerations. The channel A1+ was very popular. Having its journalists and programmes taken over by another channel was not the way to solve the problem of freedom of expression. Moreover, the co-rapporteur agrees with the chairman of the Committee on the Media that television channels in minority languages should be able to compete for the award of licences.
32. On 1 July 2004 the Armenian President signed the amendments to the Criminal Code partially decriminalising insult and defamation. The Council of Europe and the OSCE have expressed reservations with regard to the new provisions, which still give civil servants an undue advantage in relation to ordinary citizens.
Freedom of peaceful assembly
33. The rapporteur tried to ascertain exactly what happened in Yerevan on 12-13 April 2004. He obtained a copy of a letter sent to the President of the Assembly by the head of the Armenian parliamentary delegation, Mr Torosyan, in accordance with the Assembly’s decision in paragraph 9.vii of Resolution 1374(2004).
34. It seems that the police did not use excessive force. The demonstrators had received adequate warnings and the police forces present acted in accordance with the law, using legal means of dispersal (that is water cannons, tear gas, and truncheons). Following the demonstrations, a number of individuals (115 according to the authorities, more according to members of the opposition, NGOs and even the OSCE) were arrested, but most of them have since been released[17], or were released after being ordered to pay a fine[18]. At the time of the rapporteur’s visit, 12 persons were still being held, and criminal proceedings had been brought against two of them.
35. There was no ban on demonstrations in Yerevan or elsewhere[19]. Furthermore, there were no restrictions made by police on freedom of movement, either in Yerevan or elsewhere in Armenia.
36. The opposition alleges that the prisoners are political prisoners, and the government asserts the contrary. For his part, the rapporteur, who has met both sides, believes that the individuals in question were not arrested on the sole ground that they were taking part in a demonstration, but because, according to reliable information, they had violated public order under the terms of existing legislation. It should be noted that the criminal charges against two of them were dropped in May 2004 and that they were released. In addition, MM Suren Surenyants (political secretary of the Republican Party) and Vagharshak Harutyunyan (one of the leaders of this party) were released in June 2004. MM Ashot Zaqaryan and Artak Gabrielyan received a one-year suspended prison sentence.
37. The law enforcement authorities recognised that the police had reacted badly to a demonstrator who had thrown an empty plastic bottle at one of them[20]. Except in this one instance, the police reportedly showed restraint, despite the fact that 27 of them were injured and five of them were taken to hospital. It was also officially acknowledged that the search of the apartment of MP Artashes Geghamyan had been unnecessary; it had been carried out because the police thought they would find weapons there, Mr Geghamyan having made allusions to that effect. Mr Shavarsh Kocharyan was the only member of the Assembly taken into custody, but he was released a few hours later.
38. The new draft law on the organisation of gatherings, meetings, rallies and demonstrations was the subject of an expert opinion by the Venice Commission. The opinion calls for the adoption of a real law on demonstrations which specifies the actions prohibited rather than those which are authorised, and under which any actions not mentioned are presumed to be permitted[21]. Despite this, the new law came into force in May 2004[22], and the first demonstration held under this law took place in Yerevan on 16 June 2004. The opposition said that it would resume its demonstrations in the run-up to the new parliamentary session after a break during the summer. Many observers point to a fall-off in the number of participants. For example, a demonstration organised on 4 June 2004 in breach of a ban by the mayor of Yerevan was attended by only a good thousand or so people.
Minorities
39. The co-rapporteur was able to meet with representatives of the Yezedi and Kurdish minorities. The Yezedi minority feels better integrated and accords equal weight to the Armenian national identity and membership of a community practising a different religion and speaking a different language from that of the majority. Things are not quite the same among the Kurdish minority, which, in addition, claims to share the fate of the Kurdish minorities in neighbouring states. Both minorities say that their problems receive little attention from the authorities. This is made worse by their lack of political representation. As is often the case in the countries of the southern Caucasus, there is a shortage of literary works, newspapers and magazines and of radio and television programmes in minority languages. Owing to a shortage of teachers and school textbooks, it is virtually impossible to have schools which teach in the minority languages. Problems of access to employment were also mentioned, although this should probably be put down to the country’s disastrous economic situation.
40. The co-rapporteur hopes that Armenia will find solutions to the problems facing these minorities so that they can contribute more effectively, and on an equal footing, to the political, cultural and socio-economic development of a country which must be able to make use of all the manpower at its disposal. In its report on Armenia of 8 July 2003, ECRI also asked the government to focus more on the problems of minorities, and in particular the provision of teaching in the minority languages. Discrimination targets not only minorities but also the many Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. The co-rapporteur calls on the authorities to introduce a policy encouraging the development of minority cultures and to focus more attention on refugees.
Adoption and implementation of other new laws
41. An alternative civilian service is in place: the law came into force on 1 July 2004 and the final details have been settled. Conscientious objectors will now be able to opt for civilian service lasting three and a half years, which is still widely excessive in a country where normally military service lasts two years. The period of service was not reduced to three years, as requested by the Assembly.
42. The authorities have officially decided to put an end to the imprisonment for those who refuse to perform military service. The last Jehovah’s Witnesses still in prison for refusing to perform armed national service were to be released when the law came into force[23].
43. The association of Jehovah’s Witnesses raised the problem of the return of passports by the police, without however giving any details concerning the identity of persons whose passports had not been returned, which made it impossible to obtain further information from the authorities concerned. This association also alleges that the police refuse to issue the certificates needed to obtain passports in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses serving prison sentences, and refuse to register the place of residence in the case of some individuals[24] or to provide them with social insurance cards, which are now compulsory. It also mentioned the court practice of giving Jehovah’s Witnesses or their families fines for refusing to perform military service, in order to avoid prison. This practice should be brought to an end with the entry into force of the new law, but it is unknown for the time being whether it will be maintained for those who refuse to perform the alternative service on the grounds that it is too long or degrading.
44. With regard to the registration of the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in theory there is no longer any legal or administrative obstacle, the association’s statutes having been brought into line with the existing legislation. There was no indication at the time of the visit that the application, which apparently had been submitted in the proper way, was going to be rejected. However, a few days after the visit, the association’s application to be registered on the state register of legal entities (coming under the Ministry of Justice) was reportedly rejected once again, despite earlier declarations by its director to the contrary.
45. Where local self-government is concerned, the laws expected[25] are making progress and have been discussed by the experts of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, or are about to be.
Conclusions
46. Armenia finds itself once again at a crossroads between a democratic future within Europe and the prospect of an inward-looking regime leaning towards the CIS and Russia. The co-rapporteur heard Armenia’s wish to open up more to the outside world and Europe, but the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh is an impediment.
47. The reforms expected in Armenia have yet to be put in place, even if the groundwork has already been carried out. There is undoubtedly a willingness to advance along the road towards Europe. Similarly, Armenia should be able to resolve its domestic problems if the government does not take over all the means of political expression and leaves the opposition enough room to organise itself and develop harmoniously. The opposition for its part must also understand that its role should primarily be exercised in Parliament and that street demonstrations are not the appropriate solution.
48. Armenia has complied, or is about to comply, with a large number of the requests made to it by the Assembly in January and April 2004. There is undoubtedly a willingness to honour the commitments entered into. However, the situation remains precarious for all those who are critical of the government. The human rights violations are continuing in the country, particularly the violations of the freedom of the press, and the frequent cases of discrimination. Opponents to the regime hesitate to return to the country, as is the case in other countries of the southern Caucasus. Yet these forces are also essential to the country’s reconstruction. Tensions in the country are still running high because of the increasing polarisation of society.
49. The end of 2004 will be decisive for the reconciliation between the majority and the opposition. The rapporteur calls on both parties to reach a compromise and find joint solutions to Armenia’s political, social and economic ills.
APPENDIX
Programme of the visit of the co-rapporteur on Armenia
from 11 to 15 June 2004Co-rapporteur: Mr Jaskiernia, co-rapporteur (Poland, SOC)
Secretariat: Mr David CupinaFriday 11 June 2004
04 :45 Arrival of flight 0S 641 from Vienna
10 :00 Meeting with Mr Gagik HAROUTIUNYAN, President of the Constitutional Court of Armenia
11 :15 Meeting with the representatives of the yesidi and kurdish national minorities
12 :40 Meeting with the representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses
14 :45 Meeting with Mr V. Pryakhin, Ambassador of the OSCE
15 :45 Meeting with the representatives of the press and the media : Yerevan Press Club, Noyan Tapan, A1+ TV, Caucasus Media Institute, National Press Club, Internews, Media Law Institute and Freedom of Information Centre
17 :10 Meeting with the representatives of human rights NGOs : Helsinki Committee of Armenia, Helsinki Association, Soldier’s Mother, Collaboration for Democracy, Open Society Institute, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly, Civil Society Institute and International Bar Association of Armenia
19 :30 Meeting with the ambassadors of Council of Europe Member States, upon the invitation of the ambassador of Germany
Saturday 12 June 2004
09 :30 Meeting with the Armenian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
10 :05 Meeting with the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the members
10 :35 Meeting with the Chairman of the State-Legal Committee and the members
11 :05 Meeting with Mr Vardan OSKANIAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs
11 :35 Meeting with the representatives of the � Republican Party of Armenia � faction of the National Assembly
12 :05 Meeting with the representatives of the � Rule of Law � faction in the National Assembly
12 :35 Meeting with the representatives of the � Armenian Revolutionary Federation � faction of the National Assembly
14 :05 Meeting with the representatives of the � Justice � faction of the National Assembly
14 :35 Meeting with the representatives of the � National Unity � faction of the National Assembly
15 :05 Meeting with the representatives of the � United Labour Party � faction of the National Assembly
15 :35 Meeting with the representatives of the � People’s Deputy � faction of the National Assembly
16 :05 Meeting with Mr Tigran TOROSSYAN, Head of the Armenian parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly
17 :00 Meeting with Mr Arthur BAGHDASSARYAN, Chairman of the National Assembly of Armenia
17 :50 Meeting with Mr Hayk HAROUTUNYAN, Head of the Police Department of the Republic of Armenia
20 :00 Dinner
Sunday 13 June 2004
10 :00 Departure for Vanadzor
12 :00 Meeting with the Director of the Vanadzor prison and visit to the prison
15 :30 Return to Yerevan
Monday 14 June 2004
09 :00 Meeting with Mr Davit HAROUTIUNYAN, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia
09 :40 Meeting with Mr Avghan HOVSEPYAN, Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia
10 :20 Meeting with Mr Nerses NAZARYAN, Head of the Yerevan City Police Department
11 :00 Meeting with members of the Committee on National Radio and Television
14 :45 Meeting with Mr Gagik AZARYAN, Chairman of the Central Electoral Committee and the members
15 :45 Meeting with Mr Serge SARGSYAN, Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia
16 :40 Meeting with Mr Andranik MARGARYAN, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia
17 :30 Meeting with Mr Robert KOCHARYAN, President of the Republic of Armenia
19 :30 Dinner
Departure on Tuesday 15 June 2004
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) of 27 January 1997, Opinion No. 221 (2000) and Resolutions 1361 (2004) and 1374 (2004)
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 15 September 2004
Members of the committee: Mrs Durrieu (Chairperson), Mr Frunda, Mrs Tevdoradze, Mrs Severinsen (Vice-Chairpersons),Mr Agramunt Font De Mora, Mrs Aguiar, Mr Ak�am, Mr B. Aliyev,Mr Andr�, Mr Arzilli, Mr Atkinson,Mr Baška, Mrs Bauer, Mr Bernik, Mrs Bilgehan, Mr Bindig,Mrs Bousakla, Mr Van den Brande, Mr Budin,Mrs Burbien�, Mr Cabrnoch, Mr M. Cavusoglu, Mr Cekuolis, Mr Christodoulides, Mr Cilevics, Mr Colombier, Mr Debono Grech, Mr Einarsson, Mr Elo, Mr E�rsi, Mr Glesener, Mr Gross,Mr Grusenbauer, Mr Hancock, Mr Hedrich, Mr Hegyi, Mr Herkel, Mr Holovaty, Mrs J��tteenm�ki, Mr Jakic, Mr Jaskiernia, Mr Jurgens, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Kirilov, Mrs Konglevoll, Mr Kosachev, Mr Kvakkestad, Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mr van der Linden, Mr Lintner, Mr Marty, Mr Matušic, Mr Medeiros Ferreira, Mr Melc�k, Mr Mikkelsen, Mr Mollazade, Mr O’Keeffe, Mr Olteanu, Mr Pangalos, Mrs Petrova-Mitevski, Mrs P�tursd�ttir, Mr Prijmireanu, Mr Rakhansky, Mrs Ringstad, Mr Rivolta, Mr Rustamyan, Mrs Saks, Mr Sasi, Mrs Shakhtakhtinskaya, Mr Shybko, Mr Slutsky,Mr Smorawinski, Mr Soendergaard,Mr Spindelegger, Mrs Stoyanova, Mr Tepshi, Mr Tk�c, Mr Vis, Mrs Wohlwend, Mr Zacchera.
N.B. The names of those members who were present at the meeting appear in bold.
Head of the secretariat: Mrs Ravaud
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Gruden, Mr Cupina, Mr Kotlyar.
[1] Unfortunately, Mr Andr�, the other co-rapporteur, was unable to participate in this visit.
[2] The last meeting between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia took place during the meeting of heads of state of the CIS in Astana on 16 September 2004.
[3] Individual acts such as the assassination of an Armenian officer by an Azerbaijani officer in Budapest in February 2004 should be absolutely condemned, but it would not be sufficient to invoke this assassination to conclude that there is a general policy of aggression.
[4] Press release dated 4 August 2004.
[5] Declaration adopted on 8 July 2004 by 12 states of the CIS, on a motion from the delegation of the Russian Federation. Moldova agreed to sign it subject to certain conditions.
[6] The Constitutional Court is responsible for deciding on the lawfulness of presidential and parliamentary elections. It took this decision on 12 April 2004.
[7] For instance, out of 27 cases brought, none have produced a result.
[8] The “Justice” and “National Unity” groups.
[9] Article 111 of the Armenian Constitution.
[10] The laws on the status of judges, the judiciary and the judicial council.
[11] The principle of administrative detention is that the detention should last a maximum of 15 days and it can only be ordered by a Judge; during this period the detainee has neither right to a solicitor or any other right to defend himself.
[12] The articles on administrative offences and administrative liability.
[13] A person serving a life sentence must, however, have completed 20 years in prison to be able to apply for conditional release.
[14] Mikael Danielyan was beaten up on 30 March 2004.
[15] Damages were awarded to the injured journalists from public television, Kentron TV and Haykakan Jamanak, Aravot having withdrawn its complaint. The director of the Association of Investigative Journalists, Mr Edik Baghkasaryan, described this trial as a “judicial farce”.
[16] Kenton TV had just been bought by businessman Murad Guloyan.
[17] 77 individuals, according to the head of the Armenian police.
[18] 20 individuals, according to the head of the Armenian police.
[19] The principal road in Yerevan city having been blocked by demonstrators, the police forces were obliged to disperse the demonstration after several orders of evacuation.
[20] Edgar Araqelyan, who was sentenced at first instance to one and a half years in prison. His sentence was upheld following an appeal.
[21] Opinion No. 290/2004 adopted on 28 May 2004.
[22] The new law was, however, submitted to the Venice Commission’s experts for an opinion at its session on 18-19 June 2004, in order to obtain comments which might serve to amend the law; it was agreed that the experts’ opinion would be discussed again and probably adopted at the session in October 2004. It was also submitted to the Council of Europe for an expert appraisal in June 2004 (Directorate General of Legal Affairs).
[23] The representative of the Jehovah’s Witnesses said that there were still three people in Vanadzor prison, but after checks had been carried out on the spot, it was found that all three had been released this year. According to the same source, there were still two Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison at Nubarashen at the time, and another 12 elsewhere.
[24] The well-known system of “propiska”, in force in the old USSR and still today in certain republics of the CIS, was recently replaced in Armenia by the recording of all citizens in a state register.
[25] Laws on local self-government, local government staff, territorial autonomy and the status of Yerevan.