Doc. 8756

6 June 2000

Armenia's application for membership of the Council of Europe

Opinion1

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Rapporteur: Mr Michael Spindelegger, Austria, Group of the European People's Party

I.       Conclusions of the committee:

1.       The committee concludes that, in the field of legal affairs and human rights, Armenia has reached the minimum standard required for membership of the Council of Europe, though reform has to be continued.

2.       The committee thus favours Armenia’s accession to the Council of Europe, on the condition that Armenia enters into the commitments and obligations enumerated in the draft opinion of the Political Affairs Committee, amended as follows:

Amendment A:

In paragraph 13, first sentence, replace “in which they undertake” by “and notes that Armenia undertakes”.

Amendment B:

Add after sub-paragraph 13 iii. a. the following words:

“and decriminalising consensual homosexual relationships between adults;”

Amendment C:

In paragraph 13 iii. f.,

Amendment D:

Add, as the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 13 iv., the following:

“a.       to fully implement the reform of the judicial system, in order to guarantee, inter alia:

Amendment E:

Replace sub-paragraph 13 iv. c. with the following sub-paragraph:

“to adopt, within two years of accession, a law on alternative service in compliance with European standards, and, in the meantime, to pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to prison terms or service in disciplinary battalions, allowing them instead to choose (when the law on alternative service has come into force) to perform non-armed military service or alternative civilian service;”

Amendment F:

Add, before paragraph 14, the following new paragraph:

“The Parliamentary Assembly notes that Armenia shares fully its understanding and interpretation of commitments entered into as spelt out in paragraph 13, and intends:

i. to ensure that parliament is kept fully informed about the investigation into the events of 27 October 1999;

ii. to grant access to the Constitutional Court, within two years of accession, also to the government, the Prosecutor-General, courts of all levels, and – in specific cases – to individuals;

iii. to reform the Judicial Council in order to increase its independence within three years of accession;

iv. not to sign and not to ratify the CIS convention on human rights without the prior agreement of the Council of Europe;

v. to immediately institute a follow-up procedure which conforms to Council of Europe standards to complaints received on alleged ill-treatment in police custody, pre-trial detention centres, prisons and the army, and to ensure that those found guilty of such acts are punished in accordance with the law;

vi. to consider time served in a disciplinary battalion towards compulsory military service, and to ensure that the sentence of time to be served in such a battalion can be shortened if the soldier conducts himself well;

vii. to pay special attention to the fate of homeless children and those in conflict with the law."

[Note: If necessary, this amendment should be voted sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph.]

Amendment G:

Add, at the end of paragraph 17, the following words:

“In addition, the Assembly recommends that the Council of Europe Development Bank provide assistance where appropriate”.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Spindelegger, Rapporteur

A.        Introduction

1. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights appointed me Rapporteur on

Armenia’s application for membership of the Council of Europe in January 2000, as the successor of Mr Dumeni Columberg from Switzerland.

2.       This opinion is to be read in conjunction with the report of the Political Affairs Committee2 of 23 May 2000, which deals with the geopolitical situation in the region and the general politico-legal aspects of Armenia’s membership application. I shall concentrate on the legal and human rights aspects, as befits my mandate. While basing myself to some extent on Mr Columberg’s preliminary draft opinion, I will also rely on many insights gained during my recent visit to Yerevan on 5-6 May 2000. This visit was excellently organised by the Secretariat of the Armenian Parliament, and enabled me to exchange views, inter alia, with several Ministers and the President of the Republic, as well as to visit a pre-trial detention centre and make contact with a number of representatives of non-governmental organisations (please see Appendix I for the exact programme). The Political Affairs Committee adopted its draft opinion at its meeting in Dublin on 15 May 2000.

B.        The situation following the events of 27 October 1999

3.       On 27 October 1999, armed gunmen entered the Armenian Parliament and killed Mr Vazgen Sarkassian, Prime Minister, Mr Karen Demirchian, Speaker of Parliament, and six other leading figures in Armenian politics. The deaths of Mr Sarkassian and Mr Demirchian were especially tragic, since they were the leaders of the parties which had won the May 1999 parliamentary elections (also, to a large extent, on the strength of their leaders’ personalities), and which have the majority in parliament3.

4.       The population was shocked, but remained calm and composed. A new government was appointed on 13 November 1999, with the brother of the late Mr Sarkassian as new prime minister and guarantor of the government’s continuity (the Ministers of the Interior and of National Security, as well as the Prosecutor-General, were replaced). However, during Mr Columberg’s visit at the beginning of December 1999, it was already becoming clear that it might not be possible to uphold the political unity the revulsion at the killings had inspired. The underlying tension and instability was practically tangible, Mr Columberg observed, and was still in the air during my visit at the beginning of May this year.

5.       The fact that it is still very unclear who masterminded the events of 27 October 1999 does not help: conspiracy theories abound, although only few people (none of them high-ranking politicians) have so far been charged and detained. The most disputed arrests so far have been that of Mr Harutyun Harutyunyan on 5 January 2000, the deputy director of the National Television network, and that of Mr Aleksan Harutyunyan, Chief of Staff of the President and Secretary to the National Security Council. The latter was released from detention on 15 April 2000, following a decisision by a Yerevan Court of Appeal not to prolong his pre-trial detention, as demanded by the prosecutor in charge of the investigation into the events of 27 October 1999.

6.        Strangely, the investigation is being conducted by the Military Prosecutor (with the rank of Deputy Prosecutor General) Mr Gagik Yangirian. I received no satisfactory answers as to why the Prosecutor-General is not heading the investigation – I was told by the President of the Republic that he had favoured putting Mr Yangirian in charge in view of his close connections to the family of the late Prime Minister, in order to avoid the investigation being politicised. The President recognised, however, that the decision to put the Military Prosecutor in charge had been a mistake, but he felt it was too late to remedy – the investigation was too far advanced.

7.        Parliament has not, so far, itself instituted an inquiry into the events of 27 October 1999, although they took place in parliament. However, following the release of Mr Aleksan Harutyunyan, parliament asked the Military Prosecutor to report to parliament on the progress of the investigation. The President of the Republic warned him not to attend the hearing – in his opinion, it is against the law for parliament to hold a hearing on the developments in an ongoing criminal case. The Military Prosecutor did not attend the hearing, but instead, in protest, tendered his resignation to the President – who refused to accept it.

8.        Shortly before my arrival in Yerevan, the President dismissed the prime minister, Mr Aram Sarkassian (the brother of the late prime minister), as well as the Minister of Defence. On 12 May 2000, the President appointed Mr Andrik Margarian, the leader of the Republican Party of Armenia, as new prime minister. A few days later, the Yerkrapah Union (of Nagorno-Karabakh war veterans) decided to quit the parliamentary majority in protest, effectively stripping the “Unity” bloc of its parliamentary majority. At the time of writing, the new government of Armenia was still being formed.

9.        I agree with Mr Columberg’s evaluation that Armenia will not be able to overcome its political crisis until the events of 27 October 1999 are fully cleared up. As much as I regret the President’s initial decision to put the Military Prosecutor in charge of the investigation, I agree with him that it is too late to change this fact now. However, I feel that it would not be against the law for the Military Prosecutor to keep parliament fully informed about the developments in the investigation, and I have formulated an amendment to this effect. I would even go so far as to suggest that a committee of inquiry be formed in parliament, as is the norm in many West European countries.

C.        The progress of legal and judicial reform

10.       In the past two years, Armenia has enacted an impressive number of laws – nearly one hundred of them. Amongst the most important are: the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, the Law on the Organisation and the Functioning of the Courts and the Law on the Enforcement of Judicial Acts. A new Criminal Code and a new Law on the Police, are currently being considered by parliament.


11.       The judicial system in Armenia has undergone decisive reform: A three-tier system of courts was introduced in January 1999 (Courts of First Instance, Courts of Appeal, Court of Cassation). Each court was given power over its own budget, which has reduced the influence of the Ministry of Justice. Examinations of judges were held in 1998, and only those who passed these exams were appointed in January 1999. Judges’ independence was enhanced – for example, salaries were increased tenfold to reduce the risk of corruption.

12.       However, some problems remain. The representatives of non-governmental organisations to whom I spoke highlighted the extent of corruption both in the civil service in general and in the judicial system. The independence of the judiciary was, indeed, put into question in a most dramatic way. Apparently, some judges even try to exert pressure on defendants to voluntarily forego their right to a defence lawyer. In addition, defence lawyers often experience problems in gaining access to their clients, especially when the clients are being held in police custody, pre-trial detention or prisons. The question of equality of arms was also raised: in too many cases, it was alleged, the verdict was a foregone conclusion. Indeed, I personally got the same impression in the case of Mr Ashot Bleyan4, a former Minister of Education, who is currently standing trial on charges of corruption and falsification of official documents in his capacity as Director of a private school – in a cage! I find it inadmissible that a defendant who is not accused of a violent crime, and who can hardly be classified as “dangerous” (and is not classified as such by the Armenian authorities) is treated in this manner5, violating his human dignity and the presumption of innocence6. The Assembly should closely follow this trial and its outcome (e.g. in the framework of the monitoring procedure to be instituted).

13.        Despite the entry into force of the new Criminal Code of Procedure in January 1999, too much emphasis is reportedly also laid on confessions in criminal cases. These confessions, it is alleged, have sometimes been illegally obtained (allegations of beatings, even torture to force suspects to confess, persist). Allegations were also made that, as in the past, judges rely far too much on prosecutor’s accounts, and do not consider mitigating evidence enough.

14.       The Constitutional Court has been functioning since 1996, and has earned itself a good reputation. In particular, its judgment that the right to vote in local elections could not be withheld from non-citizens of Armenia has been widely acclaimed. However, access to the Constitutional Court is very restricted: It is currently limited to the President and a third of deputies in parliament7. There is apparently a general consensus that access to the Constitutional Court should be widened to include the government, the prosecutor-general, courts of all levels, and individuals (in specific cases), but for this a revision of the Constitution is necessary. The President of the Constitutional Court, Mr Gaguik Harutyunyan, hoped that such a revision could be obtained in the year 2000.

15.        A new law on the prosecutor’s office entered into force on 12 January 1999, far more in line with common European norms and standards. For example, the prosecutor’s office no longer exercises a general administrative oversight as it did in Soviet times. It now essentially defends the interests of the state. The prosecutor’s office has also become far more independent. Unfortunately, however, the salaries of prosecutors, unlike those of judges, have not been put up, making them vulnerable to corruption.

16.       Earlier this year, a Judicial Council was established. The Council has been given important responsibilities, including the selection of candidates for posts as judges, and the institution of disciplinary proceedings against judges (up to the removal of judges from their posts). However, the Council is presided over by the President of the Republic; its Vice-Chairmen are the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor-General. There are only 9 judges among the 17 sitting members. I was informed that the composition of the Judicial Council was to be reformed to avoid undue domination of the Council by the Executive, but no concrete timetable was indicated.

D.        The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms

The penitentiary system

17.       The penitentiary system is currently under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. However, according to the Minister of Justice, Mr David Harutyunyan, the responsibility for the penitentiary system is to be transferred to the Ministry of Justice by 1 February 2001. The (newly-appointed) Minister of the Interior, Mr Hayk A. Harutyunyan, did not seem to be very keen on this transfer; he predicted prison riots should the transfer be undertaken too quickly. Without wanting to set a cut-off date, I would like to underline the importance of the transfer, which should go hand-in-hand with a demilitarisation of the prison service.

18.       Both the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice are co-operating closely with the Council of Europe and individual member countries in a bid to reform the Soviet heritage in the prison system, which can be characterised as poor physical conditions, a militarised, hierarchical administrative structure, and a mentality not conducive to the protection of human rights. Indeed, very credible allegations of beatings, torture, even killings, especially, but not exclusively, in police custody and in pre-trial detention centres have been made by several NGOs and families of victims. In December 1999, both the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice admitted to Mr Columberg that the problem existed, but emphasised that it was being dealt with: cases of torture and mistreatment were usually quickly discovered, resulting in judicial sanctions against the perpetrators8. . However, during my visit in May 2000, the Minister of the Interior denied that there had been any deaths from ill-treatment in prisons in 1999, and characterised the recent report by the NGO Amnesty International9 as “a clear lie and slander”. He added, however, that there was a specific division in the Ministry which looked into possible violations of human rights by Ministry of the Interior staff; if such violations were discovered, disciplinary measures (up to dismissal) could be taken; if the violations were criminal in nature, the case was transferred to the prosecutor’s office. Information on such cases was regularly published in the Ministry’s own bulletin.

19.        While I did not find the attitude of the Minister of the Interior always very constructive, I must admit that not all allegations contained in the report by Amnesty International are true. I followed up the case of conscientious objector Mr Vitaly Usupov, who, according to Amnesty’s report, “was reportedly beaten by military personnel [in a military unit]”10. I met with Mr Usupov in the pre-trial detention centre Nurabashen (alone), and he did not claim to have been beaten (although his case is very complex – I will come back to the fate of conscientious objectors to military service in the chapter on the situation in the army). However, I do believe that ill-treatment, especially in police custody, remains a problem in Armenia, in particular because so few cases come to light and are prosecuted through the courts, obviously encouraging a certain feeling of impunity amongst perpetrators of such crimes11. It can only be hoped that Armenia’s signature and ratification of the European Anti-Torture Convention, with the effective control mechanism of the Anti-Torture Committee, will remedy this problem.

20.        I was informed by a former political prisoner (now a member of parliament), Mr Armen Rustamyan, that conditions in prison, and especially the atmosphere, improved considerably when the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was granted unlimited access to the penitentiary system. However, the ICRC is largely bound by confidentiality agreements. It would thus nonetheless be welcomed if access could be extended also to those non-governmental organisations specialising in the rights of detainees. This would have the further advantage of making the information on maltreatment in the penitentiary system more reliable, since currently NGOs have no objective way of verifying the accounts of prisoners and detainees.

21.        Mr Columberg was able to witness the conditions in prisons and pre-trial detention centres himself. On 7 December 1999, he visited Hrazdan strict regime colony for sentenced adult males who have previously served a custodial sentence. The colony was founded in 1962, but had been closed between 1987 and 1991, when it was occupied by Russian soldiers and significantly damaged. The colony currently detains 920 sentenced prisoners with a staff of 52 uniformed prison officers, under the direction of Colonel A. Sarkissyan. Considering the difficult material conditions, the colony made a favourable impression on Mr Columberg. A disused building had recently been converted into a beautifully decorated chapel by the inmates; further renovation work, in particular of a hospital block for the large number of tuberculosis-infected inmates, was under way. The prisoners, most of whom were unfortunately out of work (the industrial part of the colony being largely derelict and consequently unused)12, freely roamed the courtyards, grounds and the (large and somewhat cramped) dormitories. Except in the punishment unit, which was quite oppressive, though not unduly so, the atmosphere was positive. Mr Columberg could confirm the findings of Council of Europe experts MM. Andrew Barclay and Harald Preusker concerning this colony13.

22.        Both Mr Columberg and I myself visited Nurabashen pre-trial detention centre, in which currently 900 persons are being detained, of which 32 prisoners are sentenced to death, and 1 is HIV-positive. In December 1999, the then 3 HIV-positive prisoners were isolated in a separate cell, although they had not yet developed AIDS. The three detainees complained to Mr Columberg that they had no access to AIDS-controlling medication available outside the prison; the doctor in charge informed him that they had no need of it, and that, in any case, this medication was still in the trial-phase. I found that the situation had improved when I visited the pre-trial detention centre in May 2000; the HIV-positive prisoner was isolated (to protect fellow detainees, both intravenous drug use and homosexual relations not being uncommon), but he had no complaints.

23.        There are currently 32 prisoners sentenced to death being held in Nurabashen pre-trial detention centre. Death row currently consists of 10 cells, 5 cells having recently been renovated. Indeed, the conditions on death row seem to have improved considerably since Mr Columberg’s visit in December 1999, both as concerns material conditions and the attitude of staff. When Mr Columberg visited, prisoners were denied any exercise at all. They were only allowed to leave their cells once every 10 days to take a shower. Their visiting rights are also very restricted - they are only allowed to receive visitors once every 6 months. These measures are in no proportion to the “danger” actually presented by these prisoners. To my great satisfaction, I was informed that the Minister of the Interior has in the meantime signed a decree, which entered into force on 1 March 2000, according to which all prisoners on death row are now allowed one hour’s exercise in the yard per day. In practice, the prisoners on death row informed me that exercise was limited to one half hour per weekday, but this is already a real improvement of the conditions.

Abolition of the death penalty

24.        The death penalty is still on the statute book in Armenia, although no execution has taken place since 1991. The General Part of the new Criminal Code (no longer foreseeing the death penalty) has been passed by parliament in third and final reading. However, the new Code will only enter into force once the Code as a whole has been adopted (pending a further reading on the Special Part of the Code, as well as an expertise by the Council of Europe). It is thus realistic to expect the death penalty to be abolished in the year 2000.

The situation in the army

25.        Military service (two years long) is compulsory in Armenia. Conscientious objectors and deserters can be sentenced to up to 7 years imprisonment (in a strict regime colony, in most cases), or to between 6 months to 3 years service in a disciplinary battalion. When their sentence is up, the objectors and deserters are called up again, and have to serve an additional two years military service. If a conscientious objector should refuse again to serve in the army, he would again be sentenced to a 7-year prison term in accordance with current legislation, leading to a vicious circle. The Minister of Justice assured Mr Columberg, however, that any conscientious objectors sentenced for the second time were personally pardoned by the President14.

26.        This can be only a stop-gap measure. 7 years imprisonment, or 3 years in a disciplinary battalion (in addition to the two years of ordinary military service) is disproportionately long – I even dare to say incompatible with European standards. The adoption of a law on alternative service needs to be speeded up urgently. I sensed little willingness by the Armenian authorities to do so, ostensibly because of the unsolved situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the economic crisis in Armenia. However, the matter is urgent; four years for the adoption of such a law, as foreseen by the Political Affairs Committee, is far too long a time-period. Two years would be much more realistic.

27.        In the meantime, conscientious objectors currently serving prison sentences or in disciplinary battalions should be pardoned, and allowed to choose between performing military service in non-armed units15 or alternative civilian service, when the new law on alternative service has come into force. The Political Affairs Committee is suggesting a one-off amnesty for such conscientious objectors upon Armenia’s accession. In my opinion, that would neither be fair nor wise, since the prisons and disciplinary battalions would quickly fill up again with conscientious objectors who are drafted (and refuse to serve) in the four-year period between Armenia’s accession and the adoption of the law on alternative service. I think that all conscientious objectors, whether they have already been drafted or are only going to be drafted in the future, should not be sent to prison or a disciplinary battalion, but should rather be put “on hold” (i.e. on a sort of waiting list) until the law on alternative service is adopted, when they should be allowed to choose between performing military service in non-armed units or alternative civilian service. It should also be considered whether time served in a disciplinary battalion (both for objectors and deserters) could not be counted towards the required military service term of two years (at least in part), provided the soldier conducts himself well.

28.        Credible and detailed allegations were made by many NGOs that violence, mistreatment, even killings are part of daily life in the Armenian army. As Mr Volcic pointed out in his report, the Ministry of Defence counters that these incidents are being prosecuted as criminal cases, but my impression is that more efforts could be made. The representative of the Soldiers’ Mothers’ Committee to whom Mr Columberg spoke confirmed that her organisation was given access to the army, and that some progress had been made; so there are steps in the right direction. However, more could be done. In my experience violence and ill-treatment in the army is often a case of abuse of power: either of officers, or of older conscripts misusing their power over younger ones. In other words, what is needed most is a change in mentality: Officers should not look the other way when older conscripts are terrorising or “mobbing” younger ones. As in the case of ill-treatment in the penitentiary system, this change of mentality is most likely to happen when more cases come to light and the guilty are prosecuted. It might be an idea for the Military Prosecutor’s Office to send prosecutors to different army units on a regular basis, giving soldiers the possibility to lodge complaints informally and directly during “walk-in” consultations. This practice has yielded some success in Russia, where the hazing of young recruits (“dedovshina”) used to be as common as it is in Armenia.

29.        A new law on recruitment to the army has recently been adopted, a fact which was highlighted by some NGOs. While, in the past, there had been incidents of violence in the recruitment process (even, in isolated cases, taking the parents hostage to force the son into military service), the recruitment process was now relatively orderly16. The only problem which remained concerning recruitment, according to the NGOs, was that sometimes non-citizens (i.e. refugees of Armenian ethnic origin) were called up in contravention of the law.

30.        Mr Columberg visited the disciplinary battalion in Hrazdan, in which currently 42 conscripts are serving their sentences (most of them for desertion). The commanding officer assured him that there were no disciplinary problems in the battalion17. There was a complaint procedure for the inmates in place, according to which complaints could be directly sent to the Head of Department and even up to the Minister of Defence. The inmates had 4 hours drill a day; they were in turns required to perform other tasks, such as chopping wood or being on kitchen duty. Some of them were also renovating/ building a new dining hall. From 6 pm they were free to watch TV, read books or exercise their hobbies. Mr Columberg’s impression was again, rather favourable – the premises were clean and in good repair, and the atmosphere seemed positive, indeed as relaxed as a disciplinary battalion can probably be. The conscripts he spoke to were quite content with conditions in the battalion, complaining only of the length of their sentence (3 years). In fact, it appears that the new Criminal Code of Procedure, already in force, has abolished the former “Article 255”, according to which the commanding officer of the battalion could exercise his discretion and reduce the sentence of an inmate who performed well. This possibility should perhaps be reintroduced.

Freedom of religion

31.        Freedom of religion is an issue in Armenia. During Mr Columberg’s meeting with the Catholicos, His Holiness Gareguine II, he raised “the problem of sects”. He claimed that some sects destabilised family ties and that their activities could even be harmful to the person (for example, when parents refused medical treatment for their children). The Catholicos would like to see the role of the traditional Armenian Apostolic Church strengthened, e.g. concerning religious education in schools. In his opinion, every religion should stay within its own circle, i.e. should not proselytise, “exploiting its social or financial superiority”. The attitude of the Catholicos seems to be typical for the country as a whole: Traditional religions (including minority religions in Armenia, such as Roman-Catholics or Lutherans) are well respected and have no problems operating in Armenia, but “newcomers”, in particular new religious groups which lay a heavy emphasis on proselytising, are not that welcome.

32.        “Jehovah’s Witnesses” experience particular problems, the Armenian authorities having so far refused to register them as a religious group 18Most conscientious objectors (see paragraph 21 and 22) also belong to this group. The Minister of Justice informed me that he is currently involving the NGO “Human Rights Watch” as a mediator, on the grounds that he will register the ”Jehovah’s Witnesses” if they promise to abide by the Constitution (e.g. cease proselytising in schools). However, for the time being, not much progress seems to have been made; indeed, when I spoke to the Minister of Justice, he seemed rather reluctant, emphasising the “totalitarian character of the sect”, according to him arising from its large size in Armenia. Ot

Other problems

33.        Armenia has signed the Human Rights Convention of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Council of Europe Venice Commission on Democracy through Law, considers that “the fundamental rights set forth in the CIS Convention are generally more limited in scope than the corresponding rights under the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which affords higher standards of protection”, and that “the control mechanisms established by the CIS Convention do not appear adequate for guaranteeing effective compliance with the human rights obligations entered into by states parties and are very different from the judicial machinery of the ECHR”19. It thus seems desirable that Armenia not ratify the CIS Convention on Human Rights, since she will soon become a state party to the ECHR.

34.        According to the NGO Helsinki Association, homosexuals are still persecuted in Armenia. One of the problems is that the new Criminal Code has not yet been adopted (although it will be in the coming months), and that the old Code still carries a punishment for homosexuality (Article 116). In fact, I was informed by the Ministry of the Interior that, in 1999, four men had been accused under the first part of Article 116 (“Sexual relations of a man with another man (sodomy) is punished by imprisonment for the period of up to 5 years”), and their trials are pending in court. It can only be hoped that these men will not be imprisoned, with the Article in question due to be removed from the Criminal Code. Another problem is that, apparently, some policemen, upon finding out about a person’s homosexuality, extort bribes from him in order to keep the information secret and not to institute criminal proceedings against him20. This practice, which apparently was still continuing in May 2000, must, of course, be stopped – the prosecutor’s office should institute criminal proceedings against the offending policemen.

35.        An emerging problem in Armenia is the plight of children living on the street. According to NGO accounts, these children are often mistreated by the police, and their health is said to be awful. The government “solves” the problem by putting these children into closed boarding schools, or imprisoning them for petty crimes if they are old enough. One NGO in particular is working on a plan with the Ministry for Social Security to open a rehabilitation centre for these children. This plan deserves Council of Europe support. More worrying is that, according to some NGOs, children who come into conflict with the law are often tried in the absence of a defence lawyer, and their parents or guardians, putting them – of course – at an extreme disadvantage.

E.        Conclusions and recommendations

36.        I support the recommendation of the Political Affairs Committee that Armenia be invited to become a member of the Council of Europe.

37.        Armenia should enter into certain commitments and obligations. The draft opinion of the Political Affairs Committee should be amended to include in the legal/human rights field, the following:

38.        In addition, the Council of Europe should make a number of recommendations, and offer its support and expertise. The draft opinion of the Political Affairs Committee should be amended to include in the legal/human rights field, the following:

APPENDIX I

Programme of the visit to Armenia of Dr Michael Spindelegger,

Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

accompanied by Mrs Tanja Kleinsorge, Co-Secretary to the Committee

Friday 5 May 2000

4 h 30       Arrival at Yerevan airport

8 h 15       Working breakfast with Ambassador Roy REEVE

9 h 30 – 10 h 30       Meeting with Mr David HARUTYUNYAN

      Minister of Justice

10 h 45 - 11 h 45       Meeting with Lieutenant General Mikhail HARUTYUNYAN

      First Deputy Minister of Defence (Acting Minister of Defence)

12 h – 13 h        Meeting with Mr Hayk A. HARUTYUNYAN

      Minister of Internal Affairs

13 h – 14 h        Lunch

14 h 15 – 14 h 45       Visit to the Genocide Monument

14 h 45 - 15 h 30       Meeting with Mr KHARATIAN, Deputy Prosecutor-General,

15 h 45 – 17 h 45       Visit of Yerevan-Nurabashen Pre-trial Detention Centre No. 1

18 h – 19 h       Meeting with MM. RUSTAMYAN and H. HOVHANNISYAN,

19 h 15 – 20 h       Meeting with Mr Robert KOCHARYAN

20 h 30       Working dinner hosted by the Armenian Special Guest Delegation

Saturday 6 May 2000

8 h       Working breakfast with Mrs Eleni SOURANI

9 h – 10 h 15       Meeting with NGO representatives

12 h        Departure from Yerevan airport

Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 8747)

Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Reference to committee: Doc 7563 and Reference No 2092 of 29 May 1996

Opinion approved by the committee on 22 May 2000

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Coin and Ms Kleinsorge

1 See Doc 8747 of the Political Affairs Committee.

2 Doc 8747.

3 Their respective political parties, “Unity” and “Stability” won 82 out of 131 seats in parliament.

4 Mr Columberg met with Mr Bleyan in Nurabashen pre-trial detention centre in December 1999. (I was unfortunately not able to meet him myself, as his trial was taking place when I visited the pre-trial detention centre). Mr Bleyan considers himself (and is apparently considered by many) a political prisoner, and has complained of having been ill-treated in custody and allowed only restricted access to a lawyer in the first two weeks of his detention. Mr Bleyan also claims his detention is unlawful. Mr Columberg asked that Mr Bleyan’s allegations be looked into. In response, I received a letter dated 14 February 2000 from Mr H. Danielyan, Chairman of the Council of Court Chairmen, who informed me of the exact charges against Mr Bleyan and declared “The court procedure is conducted according to the legislation of the Republic of Armenia. No duress is being implied on the court procedure”. In the meantime, however, Mr Bleyan went on hunger strike for a time in protest of his pre-trial detention, and being held in a cage in the courtroom.

5 It was explained to me that the Court of first instance trying Mr Bleyan was sitting in the building of the Cassation Court, where all courtrooms were equipped with such cages for the defendants. (I have also heard, though, that this is not true, and that the building also boasts “normal” courtrooms.) In any case, however, taking a measure such as putting a defendant behind bars in the courtroom should be a decision taken on the merits of every individual case, i.e. the defendant’s “dangerousness”, and should not be dependant on the equipment present in the courtroom. I thus do not find the authorities’ answers in this case satisfactory.

6 Excerpts of the trial are apparently broadcasted on TV.

7 In disputes concerning election results, presidential and parliamentary candidates also enjoy access to the Constitutional Court.

8 The Minister of the Interior informed Mr Columberg that, in 1998, 33 policemen and prison guards had been accused, of which 22 had been found guilty. In 1999, 22 had been accused, including on the grounds of a death in Vanadzor prison in September 1999.

9 “Armenia, Torture and ill-treatment: Comments on the forthcoming review by the United Nations Committee against Torture”, Amnesty International, April 2000.

10 Ibid, p. 17.

11 Worryingly, some of the lawyers of those detained in relation to the events of 27 October 1999, also allege that their clients were tortured and ill-treated in pre-trial detention. These allegations should immediately be investigated.

12

The director further explained that the difficult economic situation of the country did not allow him to contract many of his prisoners out to work.

13 Report of a Council of Europe Co-operation Visit to Prisons and other Institutions in Armenia, February 1998, Themis 4 (98) Armenia, Appendix D8, pp. 70-73.

14 The President confirmed that he had indeed already pardoned one such conscientious objector.

15 Military service in a non-armed unit should mean not ever to have to touch a weapon; these soldiers, serving, e.g. as cooks or lorry drivers, should be exempt from any type of military training.

16

Bar the possibility of bribing doctors on the recruitment panel to be exempted from military service.

17 In fact, the disciplinary battalion did not have access to a punishment cell or “Hauptwache” of its own; in severe cases, the offender would thus be incarcerated in the punishment cell of the neighbouring Hrazdan strict regime prison colony. However, Mr Columberg was assured that this was a theoretical option which had not been used at all in 1999.

18 In one recent case, custody of her children was apparently taken from a mother by the Court of Cassation due to her belonging to this group.

19 CDL-Inf (98) 8, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 34th plenary session (Venice, 6-7 March 1998)

on the basis of the report by Mr G. MALINVERNI (Switzerland), p. 13.

20 See 1998-1999 newsletter by the Helsinki Association, published in November 1999, pp. 60-61.