ANNUAL REPORT OF HELSINKI ASSOCIATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA FOR THE YEAR OF 2008

ANNUAL REPORT OF HELSINKI ASSOCIATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA FOR THE YEAR OF 2008

Helsinki Association on Human Rights in Armenia
/apt.33, 8 Nansen St, 1st blind alley, Yerevan 0056, Republic of Armenia/
Tel.: +374 10 589991, +374 10 586093 E-mail: mike@arminco.com
© Helsinki Association on Human Rights in Armenia, 2009

CONTENTS
ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA………………………………………………1
PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY……………………………………………………….14
PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT…………………..32
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND EFFECTIVE REMEDIES……………….46
5. FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION………60
6. WITNESS STATEMENTS OF MARCH 1 EVENTS…………………………67
7. APPENDIX 1: LIST OF POLITICAL PRISONERS
8. APPENDIX 2: LIST OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS IN PRISON

1. ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA

In the year of 2008 the Republic of Armenia held presidential elections which took place on 19 February 2008. The elections were officially observed by 6 international organizations and 39 local non-governmental organizations.
It can be said that all those international organizations besides the CIS observation mission officially stated that the 2008 presidential elections were not free and fair.
On the 20th February, Monitoring Observation Mission of OSCE/ODHIR published its initial report “On Presidential Elections of RA”. They did not qualify the elections as one step forward. “Elections are qualified in accordance the standards and Recommendations on the Elections of OSCE and CE, as well as in accordance with national legislation.
On 22 February, Human Rights Watch, a human rights defender organization issued a statement which strictly criticized the actions of the Armenian authorities during Presidential Elections of the 19th February, 2008.
As the Constitutional Court of Armenia stated in its decision on the application contesting the results of the 2008 presidential elections: “Elections in the Republic of Armenia should serve as a settlement tool for political conflicts strengthening the foundations of state order. But in practice the post-election processes escalate both political and social confrontation jeopardizing such democratic values as tolerance, pluralism, cooperation, public confidence and civilized dialogue.”
The most remarkable is the assessment of the Constitutional Court of RA, which was expressed in the decision on the complaints contesting the results of the elections.

“As it becomes clear from the fundamental principles of the constitutional order of Armenia, elections in Armenia should become a factor of stabilization of state order and political reconciliation. But in practice, the post-election period escalates both the political and public confrontation jeopardizing democratic values such as tolerance, pluralism, cooperation, public trust, civilized dialogue. This situation requires constitutional regulation as well, which was often referred to by the Constitutional Court in its decisions and annual reports for the years of 2006 and 2007.
Legislation regulating the elections was mainly consonant with international standards creating a legal framework for holding free and fair elections. However, the Constitutional Court expressed its rigid criticism over certain legal irregularities. These are as follows:
Absence of a clear definition of the concept of “raw data of protocols” in the election law which creates a possibility of arbitrary interpretation.
The requirement of Article 22/3 of the Election Code on revealing the financial source for conducting public surveys is not met.
The election law and other regulations contain a number of shortages and inconsistencies in organization of pre-election activities and provision of legal remedies against violations of the right to vote. As a result, it was practically impossible to apply to the Court of Appeal in a special proceedings order seeking to contest decisions, acts or its omission of the CEC.
Article 40 of the Electoral Code which provides for a procedure for deliberations on applications/complaints filed with electoral commissions is flawed as it envisages quite unnecessary formal requirements for the list of documents to be submitted in such a case. Meanwhile, in order to effectively control the election process and to raise confidence of the general public towards the election it is necessary to establish an efficient legal regulation related to processing applications/complaints filed to electoral commissions which would result in a well-grounded decision.
Right before the start of the elections the amount of the election nomination fee increased sharply up to 30.000 USD. Armenian parliamentarians did not conceal that the true objective of this was to restrict the number of persons who wished to run for the presidency. The norm of forming coalitions was abolished as well so political parties were forbidden of presenting a united candidate. This was made in order to prevent oppositional parties from officially nominating Levon Ter-Petrosyan as their united candidate.
Overall, 9 persons were nominated to run for the presidency. All of them had an equally distributed time of free campaigning on public TV and Radio. Though the charge for paid campaigning on private TV channels was rather high, only few of such companies agreed to air nominees’ promotion advertisings.
TV and radio coverage of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s campaign was basically carried out from a negative angle while the coverage of the rest presidential hopefuls was either positive or at least neutral. Five Yerevan-based private TV stations out of six covered the campaign of Serj Sarksyan more than anyone else’s.
Thus, the time allocated by Armenia TV for the coverage of Serj Sarksyan was twice as much as compared with other nominees. The coverage was exclusively positive without any critical remarks as regards him or the ruling party.
The rallies of Serj Sargsyan and meetings with his electorate were shown with one-day delay by public and private TV stations and contained repeating footage of successful meetings, which speaks of a special editorial policy.
TV channels mainly avoided to make critical comments towards the seven candidates out of eight. One of the candidates, Levon Ter-Petrosyan got a wide negative coverage of public and private TV stations. This coverage took place as acting President R. Kocharyan and some of the registered candidates, mainly Artashes Geghamyan, often criticized him. However, nearly all the broadcasting mass media were neglecting the critical comments of oppositional candidate made against the acting authorities. Public TV Station showed a selective coverage of his election campaigning. By using fake video they created an impression of indifferent and small auditorium of his campaign. This is in case when Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s video material was shown during his unpaid and paid TV air hours which depicted crowded rallies and high inspiration of the electorate.
In the presidential elections some progress was achieved regarding the quality of voters' lists formation. However, there were citizens without birth dates (00.00), or the citizens having 01.01 or 01.06 birth dates in the voters list. This phenomenon cast doubt and created an impression that these notes referred to persons not residing in the mentioned address or those who were outside Armenia. It was impossible to dispel the doubts by applications or claims.
There were 80 thousand citizens in the voters list whose column stating the date, month and year of the electors, mentioned “00.00”.
No member of oppositional parties appointed as members of electoral committees was chosen as a committee chairman (president, deputy, secretary) among nearly 1960 electoral committees. Those positions were occupied by persons appointed by the President of Armenia or by the candidate for the presidency, acting prime minister.
All well-known election frauds were registered on the day of election.
During the Presidential elections of 2008, as well as on the stage of pre-election campaign a violation of the right to free election took place.
The municipal tax department of Gyumri instructed all commercial enterprises to submit along with tax reports, the list of voters supporting Serj Sarksyan’s candidacy. Tax officials demanded the taxpayers to include the name, surname and father’s name, official address, passport data, work place, the number of constituency and polling-station, as well as the number in the voters list and the signature of the voters to be put on the paper distributed to them. The title of that form was “Republic of Armenia Tax Department of Gyumri: votes of the presidential elections of February 19, 2008”. Businessmen also had to mention personal data. The Tax Administration Office agreed with businessmen for the following: they bring personal data of at least 20 persons, and the officers of Tax Administration Office admit the report submitted by a businessman without any further actions required. They would work with a simplified taxation order if they submitted data of more than twenty persons.
Hovhannes Margaryan, a member of parliament of RA representing the party Orinats Yerkir told the journalists about this on 31.01.2008 in the press club “Asparez”. He also submitted a copy of the above mentioned paper. The newspaper “Aravot” published an article about this in its edition of 01.02.2008.
Ashot Karapetyan, the chief of police of Nor Norq district of Yerevan accompanied by a group of officers of criminal investigation office visited Nairi Avetisyan on 29 January. The latter was residing in that district and owned premises occupied by Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s pre-election campaign headquarters. The chief of police tried to make him close Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s headquarter. At first N. Avetisyan and two members of the headquarter Tigran and Lyova Meliqyans were brought to the police department, A. Karapetyan had a talk with N. Avetisyan demanding him to get his area back, to split away the posters, offered money and threatened N. Avetisyan that he would deal with him personally unless he closed his office. In the police department, in presence of headquarter members he said that Levon Ter-Petrosyan was his personal enemy. The chief of the police instructed his officers to keep N. Avetisyan in the police department, and N. Avetisyan was kept there for seven hours. This information was published in the newspaper “Aravot” on 01.02.2008.
On 01.02.2008 the candidate for the presidency L. Ter-Petrosyan visited Lori in the framework of his election campaign. During that visit town residents of Alaverdi who wished to meet him in order to be informed about his election program and his views, faced with many obstacles. Any vehicle moving from Sarahart district to the center of the town was stopped.
Meliq Ayvazyan, the governor of the village of Odzun in Lori Region and a member of Republican Party of Armenia threatened his co-villagers to refrain from visiting the meeting of L.Ter-Petrosyan with voters.
Radik Sargsyan, the owner of Malatia market in Yerevan made the traders of that market go to the meeting with the candidate for the president, ex prime-minister Serj Sargsyan, which was held near the Andranik monument.
During the campaign of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in the town of Ijevan in Tavush region the authorities exerted pressure on the people in order not to go that meeting. The mayor thrust his opinion on them, threatened them that they would be fired if they went there. The chiefs of companies, village governors exerted pressure on the people saying that they would be fired from their positions and would be deprived of the right to Paros Aid. The people were threatened; they didn’t give even their names. All the employers were instructed not to go to the meeting with Levon Ter-Petrosyan. The offices of governors served as headquarters of Serj Sarksyan, there were his posters on the walls.
During the meeting of February 6, 2008 in the town Artashat in Ararat region a group of young men threw stones, pieces of ice and bottles on the people standing on the stage. The attack was led by the son of Jonik Abrahamyan, who is the brother of Hovik Abrahamyan, RA ex-Minister of Territorial Governance. They came to the site by cars having no numbers. They parked the cars near the police department. As a result Sargis Hovhannisyan, deputy of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s security service, lieutenant-colonel of state security service was injured.
The mayor and the policemen didn’t interfere even after Nikol Pashinyan, one of the meeting organizers, appealed to the policemen by the microphone requesting them to take the provokers away. The policemen didn’t even interfere when the same young men started fighting with the deputy of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s security service, as a result of which he suffered injuries. After that, the provokers left, and the policemen didn’t even try to stop them. After a short time the mayor of Artashat, who was standing near the headquarters of Republican Party of Armenia, went on-stage and declared that he didn’t witness any fight there.
Another provocation was attempted during a meeting of oppositional supporters held in the village Verin Artashat.
During the meeting of Levon Ter-Petrosyan held in Talin, as a result of provocation several important members of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s headquarter were arrested by police. Later they were all imprisoned.
Provocation was planned also in the village Chambarak. Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s headquarter stuff was informed about it and they had to cancel the meeting with the people of Chambarak, which was planned earlier. However press service “Haylur” of Public TV Station, which was present only in some of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s meetings, waited for an “important event”. “Haylur” broadcast anti PR reportage about the meeting held in Chmabarak at the expense of time allocated for TV campaign of Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
The fact that the provocation was organized in advance is becoming evident as three cameras of “Haylur” press service were on in Artashat that day – quite an exceptional thing. The cameramen tried to “catch” the result as they planned.
On February 7, 2008 Hovhannes Grigoryan, Gevorg Zaqaryan, Aghvan Hakobyan, the representatives of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s headquarter of Nor Norq 3 in Yerevan, were gluing up the posters of Levon Ter-Petrosyan informing the people about a meeting due to take place on 9 February. A car Nissan Armada (33 êê335) came up to them and Meliq Gasparyan went out of the car accompanied by 3 persons. They all were representing the headquarters of Serj Sarksyan. They asked the young man what they were gluing up and as they were told that these were posters of L. Ter-Petrosyan, M. Gasparyan and his men attacked the representatives of L. Ter-Petrosyan and beat them heavily. The young men were taken to hospital, one of them was put in Intensive Therapy Department.
On February 7, 2008 when the cars of Levon Ter-Petrosyan were near the village Shirakamut, Lori region, a car having no numbers appeared there and tried to make a car accident. There were 3 persons in the car. They told that they were the officers of Special Service Department of Spitak, although they didn’t show any certificates.
It was very difficult to differentiate between the election campaign of The Republican Party supporting Serj Sarksyan, and the activities carried out by local authorities. The reason is that some of the mayors were supporting the candidate of the president, ex Prime Minister Serj Sarksyan (for example, the mayors of Alaverdi (Lori) and Gyumri (Shirak) continued their official duties taking active participation in the election campaign of Serj Sarksyan. The mayor s of Goris (Syunik) and Masis (Ararat) as well as the Chief of the community of Erebuni informed the election observation group of OSCE/ODIHR that they were on a short holiday in order to be integrated in the election campaign of Serj Sarksyan, while the mayor of Armavir told them that he was busy with the election campaign only after his working hours. The governor of Odzun, according to his statement, divided his working day into two parts.) Moreover, the Republican Party of Armenia had a number of offices in the premises of local authorities (in the districts of Yerevan, in the towns and villages of Armenian regions). The chief of the election headquarter of Serj Sarksyan said that all the local branches of the Republican Party were “turned into” the election offices including the ones that were situated in the premises of local authorities.
One of the public servants said that they were instructed to take part in one of the election campaigns of Serj Sarksyan. On February 6, on the day of Serj Sarksyans meeting in Vanadzor (Lori), the public transport worked free of charge (from 11:30 to 23:30) and the state offices were mainly empty. The employers confessed that they had been told that they could leave their job for a while in order to take part in the meeting.
Double voting was carried out on the Election Day using false election stamps in national passports in order to put a seal on those pages.
Thousands of citizens were simultaneously added in both main and additional voters’ lists, and they voted for a second time.
In order to prevent possible frauds a claim was submitted to the Police of Republic of Armenia requesting to provide information on how many people had applied to police seeking to sign out of their ex-domicile and to obtain registration in the new residence . That information was never received.
During the pre-election period the CEC received more than 100 claims, the most part of them were from Levon Ter-Petrosyan's proxies. The CEC mainly didn't discuss the claims at its official sessions. However, on 17 February, 2 days before the elections, an extraordinary session was held for a short time where discussions on draft decisions for the complaints took place. The complainants were not summoned and the committee did not hear them. All the complaints were dismissed as ungrounded without a detailed examination of the events described therein. The practice of the examination of such kind of complaints seriously undermines any possibility for the complainant to achieve any success.
The Central Electoral Committee of RA summarized and promulgated the election returns two days prior the date envisaged by law. According to the “Election Code” of RA the election results should be made public on the 7th day after the elections. This period enables the electoral committees to examine the complaints of the candidates, their proxies or other parties concerned. As the election returns were announced earlier dozens of claims weren’t examined.
According to the election returns announced by the CEC the overall number of votes given to 9 candidates totaled 1.632.666. This number was divided into the following proportions:
S. Sargsyan – 862.369 votes
L. Ter-Petrosyan – 351.222 votes
A. Baghdasaryan – 272.427 votes
V. Hovhannisyan – 100.966 votes
V.Manukyan – 21.075 votes
T. Karapeyan – 9.792 votes
A. Geghamyan – 7.524
A. Meliqyan – 4.399 votes
A. Harutyunyan – 2.892
According to the Election Code, a candidate who receives more than 50 percent of the overall votes is considered as the winner. If none of the candidates receives that 50 percent, then a second phase of the elections takes place on the 14th day with the participation of two candidates who had received votes more than others.
Serj Sargsyan received 862.369 votes which made 52.8 percent of the overal votes. Levon Ter-Petrosyan received 351.222 votes which made 21.5 percent, while Artur Baghdasaryan received 272.427 votes which made 16.7 percent.
Artur Baghdasaryan officially questioned the legitimacy of the elections because of mass election fraud. Vahan Hovhannisyan, who finished fourth in the presidential run, refused a proposition to occupy the post of vice-speaker in the Parliament. As to another presidential hopeful, Vazgen Manukyan also stated that the elections were marred with fraud.
Levon Ter-Petrosyan declared about multiple cases of election fraud stating about his victory in the elections.
On the day following the elections L. Ter-Petrosyan’s supporters started permanent rallies and demonstrations. The opposition installed a tent camp on the Opera House Square in the center of Yerevan, which was officially named as Liberty Square since 1988. Thousands of people participated in the rallies of protest which resembled the time when all the Armenians gathered and demanded separation from the Soviet Union. These demonstrations were peaceful. The demand of the protesters was to annul the results of the elections.
During the demonstrations L. Ter-Petrosyan declared that the election result would be questioned in the Constitutional Court of Armenia.
According to Article 74 paragraphs 3 and 16 of the Law on Constitutional Court of Armenia, the election results shall be questioned in the Constitutional Court within 7 days after they are announced by the CEC. The Constitutional Court shall adopt a decision within 10 days after the admission of the complaint.
T.Karapetyan, another presidential candidate, also filed a complaint to the Consititutional Court, in which he incorporated the election observation report of the OSCE.
Though an international observation mission plays an important role in the election process, the Consitutional Court yet finds that the preliminary election observation report issued by such a mission which mentions a number of election violations chosen on selective basis is not a proper ground for it to override the decision of the CEC.
The fact that T. Karapetyan submitted his complaint before the expiry of 7-day time-limit, on Febuary 28, posed diffuculities to L.Ter-Petrosyan who wished to contest the results of the elections too. L.Ter-Petrosyan filed his complaint on 1 March. The proceedings started on 4 March and lasted for quite a short time as the Constitutional Court is obliged to take a decision not later than 10 days after the admission of the first complaint, which was 8 March 2008.
The CC ignored multiple arguments and proofs submitted by the representatives of L.Ter-Petrosyan.
Particularly, they submitted that the proxies filed 166 applications to the constituency election committees seeking re-calculation of votes. 102 of them remained unexamined. 180 complaints were filed too seeking to annul the results of the elections because of the election fraud.
In the morning of 1 March the police forces attacked the people who stayed in a tent camp on Liberty Square. They destroyed the tent camp and dispersed the protesters. Later in the day the demonstrators gathered nearby the Embassy of France. Levon Ter-Petrosyan was ordered to stay in his residence. Clashes between the police and the protesters took place near Myasnikyan Monument and the Embassy of France, which officially resulted in 10 human casualties.
In the night of 2 March 2008 the then President Robert Kocharyan issued an emergency rule in Yerevan for the period of 20 days. Regular military forces and the military equipment were brought to the city in order to secure the emergency rule. Electronic and printing media were subjected to censorship. Media outlets uncontrolled by the Government were banned to be issued during the entire emergency period.
Coverage of the hearings of the Constitutional Court taking place during the time of emergency was one-sided.
Representatives of international and regional organizations, among them UN General Secretary, CE General Secretary, EU Presidency, the PACE, the Ombudsman of Armenia etc, issued an alert regarding the situation with the human rights in Armenia. The same concerns were reflected in Resolution 1609 and Resolution 1620 adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the year of 2008.

2. PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

The right to freedom of peaceful assemblies and freedom of association is regulated Armenia by a number of domestic laws as well as international documents it acceded to. Among them are:
The Constitution of RA (Articles 29, 44 and others)
The Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 11)
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 21, 22)
RA Law “On Holding Assemblies, Rallies, Processions and Demonstrations (hereafter, the Law “On Assembly”), adopted on 28 April 2004
RA Law “On Administrative Principles and Administrative Procedure”
RA Law “On Legal Acts”
As regards the pre-election period, that is, from January to February, 2008 the right to freedom of peaceful assembly was regulated by the Election Code of RA too.
According to the Constitution of RA (Article 6), international treaties are component parts of the legal system of the Republic of Armenia enjoying superiority over the national laws. Accordingly, the freedoms guaranteed by the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 11) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 21; 22) can not be restricted by the national legislation.
The Parliament of RA adopted the Law “On Assembly” on the 28th May 2004.
In 2008 the acting legislation can be conditionally divided into 3 parts:
the period of action of the Law “On Assembly” ( 01.01.2008 – 01.03.2008)
the period of the Emergency Rule in Armenia as declared by the president of Armenia (01.03.2008 – 20.03.2008)
the period since 20.03.2008 which lasts up to date whereby several amendments were made to the Law “On Peaceful Assembly”.

In Resolution 1374 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed its concern over the legitimacy of the draft-law on assembles which hadn’t been adopted yet.
Despite the concerns expressed by the PACE, the Parliament of RA adopted the Law “On Assembly”, which was evaluated as limiting in the final report of Venice Commission.
Within the time period of Emergency Rule the Parliament of RA made amendments to the Law “On Assembly”. The amendments came into force next day after its publication, that is, on the 19 March 2008.
The issues on the right of freedom of peaceful assemblies in Armenia were restricted by these amendments. Under the Article 48 of the Law “On Legal Acts”, legal acts restricting the rights and freedoms of persons, strengthening the control, defining responsibility and other normative legal acts come into force on the tenth day following the day of its official publication, if there is no other time limit defined by law. According to the Article 48 of the Law “Legal Acts”, the amendments could come into force on 29.03.2008.
The authorities allowed this violation to go in order to obtain the right to prohibit the holding of peaceful assemblies after the expiry of the Emergency Rule.
In particular, on 24.03.2008 Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the candidate for the presidency informed the Mayor of Yerevan about his intention to hold an assembly. Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s right to hold an assembly was rejected considering the grounds that the application was submitted under the conditions of violation of time limits. Levon Ter-Petrosyan applied to the Constitutional Court of RA in order to assert his rights, however the Court did not take into consideration the fact that the amendments to the Law “On Assembly” came into force in violation of the law, and, finally, the Constitutional Court dismissed the claim.
One of the amendments made to the law on assembly suggests that public events can be prohibited by the authorized body if they are directed towards the overthrow of constitutional order, national, racial, religious discrimination, agitation towards abuses and war, or can lead to mass disorder and crimes, the disturbance of national security, public order, public health and morality, the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of other people.
The Council of Observers of OSCE/ODIHR when addressing the issues of Freedom of Assemblies expressed an opinion that the restriction of the right on such grounds was acceptable only in case of an inevitable threat of abuses.
One of the amendments made to the Law “On Assembly” provides a restriction, according to which: “In cases when mass public events are turned into mass disorder, which leads to human losses, in order to prevent new crimes the authorized body can temporarily prohibit mass public events till the circumstances of the crime and the offenders are revealed” (Article 13, part 6). The effect of this norm brought about a situation when the emergency rule had already expired whereas one of the restrictions it contained was still acting. This norm concerns everyone without any exceptions and if someone became the reason to implement such restriction, so the others, subsequently, would be deprived of the right to hold peaceful assemblies. Such restriction does not correspond to the sense of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Particularly, European Court of Human Rights stated that “A person can not be deprived oh his right to hold peaceful assemblies as a result of separate manifestations of abuses and other punishable actions during the demonstrations”. (See Ezelen vs. France (1991), Zilliberger vs. Moldova (2004)).
By implementing such restriction the Parliament of RA had to take into consideration Article 3 of the Constitution of RA, which states that “A person, his/her dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms are the highest values. A State shall guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of a citizen in accordance with the principles and norms of international law. A State is limited by fundamental rights and freedoms of a man and citizen which enjoy a direct effect”.
The Constitution of RA defines two mechanisms for the restriction of a person’s or a citizen’s fundamental rights and freedoms (including the right to hold peaceful assemblies).
The first one is implemented in common conditions, if it is necessary in democratic society for its security, for the maintenance of public order, crime prevention, public’s health and morality and for the protection of constitutional rights and freedoms of others, honor and reputation of other people (Article 43).
The second one is implemented during military and emergency situations. Mainly, the Article 44 of Constitution of RA provides that certain rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen can be temporarily prohibited during military and emergency situations.
Part 2 of Article 43 of Constitution of RA provides that the restrictions of the rights of a person and a citizen can not exceed the range of international obligations and commitments assumed by Armenia. The above-mentioned case-law of the European Court of Human Rights outlines the mechanisms of struggle against the manifestations of violence during mass events and the frames of permissibility of the restriction of freedom of assembly.
Both before and after the amendments to the Law “On Assembly”, there were a number of provisions authorizing the Police for a number of actions during mass events. Particularly, Article 8, part 2 of the Law states that the Police shall ensure the lawfulness and the maintenance of public order during mass events; the Police shall take away people who commit illegal actions or breach public order. This means that in case of any illegal acts during the peaceful events the Police have the right to take away the people who breached public order so as to maintain the peaceful event and to prevent possible mass disorder.
According to the Law on Assembly, the Police have the right to make a decision to terminate the public events in cases as defined by law. They also have the right to demand the organizers to terminate the public event. In case the organizer disobeys the Police or neglects a decision taken by the Police, the latter have the right to stop any public and other event which is defined by law.
According to domestic legislation, the Police may take a decision to disperse an assembly taking into consideration the fundamental principles of administration. Such a decision shall be consonant with objective pursued by the Constitution of RA and laws, and the measures through which it shall be achieved shall be appropriate, necessary and proportional (RA Law “On Administrative Principles and Administrative Procedure”, Article 8).
There are all necessary legal grounds and possibilities for maintaining legitimacy and public order during public events. The same refers to the grounds for terminating public events in cases of manifestations of violations in order to avoid chaotic situations.
The right to freedom of assembly is regulated by the Law “On Assembly”. Articles 10-12 define the informing content, its representation and discussion order for conducting public events. According to it, the organizers shall inform the head of the community, the Mayor of Yerevan in a written form about the venue of the public event. Before the amendments of 19.03.2008 the informing process was perceived as legal and was a subject to discussion, if the application was submitted not late than 3 working days before the event day and not early than 20 working days. The 3 days time period was changed into 5 days time period. According to the Article 12, part 6, in case if the grounds for holding a public event which are mentioned in the Article 13 are missing, the authorized body considers the notice and the event takes place on the venue and at the time mentioned in the application.
Before making the amendments to the Law “On Assembly”, there was a norm according to which if local authorities have not prohibited the holding of a mass event till 16:00 pm of the working day following the day of notice submission, the organizers automatically acquire the right to hold a mass public event under the conditions as mentioned in the application.
Before the amendments the Law also provided the right to hold spontaneous assemblies and it there was no need to inform local authorities about the assembly.
As a result of the amendments, spontaneous assemblies were prohibited, while under the pressure of the European institutions some amendments were made to the Law “On Assembly” and the institute of spontaneous assemblies again came into use. However, according to the new edition, it will be illegal if it lasts more than 6 hours (Article 6, part 6.1).
During the presidential election campaign of 2008 presidential candidates held many public meetings throughout Armenia in the framework of pre-election meetings with their electorate. Only some of those meeting were held after the organizers informed local authorities about their intentions. They were mainly hold without informing the authorities in advance. Before the day of election the dominant part of assemblies were held only after informing Mayor of Yerevan.
Though the Law “On Assembly” provides that a decision shall be taken only in case the right to hold a peaceful assembly is prohibited, it has become habitual that the authorized body composes an administrative act (a decision) either to consider the application or to prohibit the event.
The Law on Assembly also regulates the cases, when two organizers submit applications to the local authorities about their intentions to hold assemblies on the same day and on the same venue. In this case a priority should be given to the application that was submitted first, and the local authority shall suggest an alternative variant: to hold an assembly in the same place but at another hour, or at the same hour, but in another place.
There was a case when the Municipality of Yerevan did not make any decision after being informed about the assembly, but the person who submitted an application was told in person that the place had been given to another organizer. Particularly, during the presidential elections of 2008, D. M., the proxy of Levon Ter-Petrosyan submitted 3 applications (on 08.02.2008, 16.02.2008 and 17.02.2008) to the local authorities with an intention to hold an assembly within the frameworks of pre-election campaign. The mayor’s office of Yerevan considered the notices of the two of them, meanwhile, no decision was made about the third application. According to the Election Code of RA, 17.02.2008 was the last day of election campaign for presidential elections of 2008. Election campaign is prohibited one day before the voting and on the voting day. It is very important for every candidate to hold a mass pre-election meeting as a final stage in their campaigns. D.M. submitted an application for conducting a pre-election meeting on 17.02.2008. The time-limits were followed according to the Law “On Assembly”. The application of D.M. was the first and the only one that had been submitted. He was informed orally by the representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan that the Liberty Square (it is the most effective place to hold a meeting) had already been given to Serj Sarksyan to hold his pre-election campaign and that he had submitted an application earlier. D.M. demanded them to provide him with the right to hold an assembly in a place nearby it, near Matenadaran. The person, who should make a decision on this request, terminated the negotiations and went to consult with his authorities. Later on he came back saying that the place of Matenadaran had already been given to T. Karapetyan, another candidate for presidency. D.M. requested them to give him the right to hold an assembly near V. Mamikonyan’s monument. The authorized person again terminated the negotiations and again went to consult with his authorities. Returning he told D.M. that the place had also been given to another candidate. As a result Serj Sarksyan held his assembly in the Liberty Square, but the places of Matenadaran and Vardan Mamikonyan’s monument remained free, none of the above mentioned candidates held an assembly there.
On 03.02.2008 D.M. submitted an application to the Mayor of Yerevan requesting to provide him with all necessary documents concerning the decisions on assemblies, to make copies of them in order to have appropriate proofs to claim the rights of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in court. The authorities of Yerevan Municipality did not give him the right to obtain the necessary proofs.
More than 100 assemblies were prohibited by the authorities of Yerevan Municipality throughout 2008.
For example: Assembly of 13.03.08 (11.03.08, Decision No19), assemblies of 21.03.08 (11.03.08, Decisions No20, No21,), assemblies of 22.03.08; 23.03.08 (18.03.08, Decisions No23, 24,), assembly of 26.03.08 (19.03.08 and 24.03.08 Decisions No26; 27), assembly of 27.03.08, assembly of 02.04.08 (28.03.08 Decision No 28), assemblies of 03; 05; 07; 09; 11.04.08 (01.04.08 Decisions No 32; 33; 34; 35; 36), assembly of 04.04.08 (08.03.08 Decision No31), assemblies of 05; 06.04.08 (28.03.08 Decision of 29), assembly of 09.04.08 (07.04.08, Decision No39), assembly of 10.04.08 (08.04.08 Decisions No46; 47), assemblies of 11; 12; 13. 14; 15; 16.04.08 (08.04.08, Decision No 45; 44; 43; 42; 40; 41), assemblies of 16; 18; 20; 23; 25.04.08 (15.04.08, Decisions No 49; 50; 51; 52), assembly of 01.05.08 (25.04.08, Decision No58), assemblies of 13; 14.05.08 (30.05.08, Decision 77; 76), assembly of 20.06.08 (12.06.08, Decision No80, 16.06.08, No81), assembly of 23.06.08 (26.06.08, Decision No82), assembly of 17.07.08 (09.07.08, Decision No84), assembly of 01.08.08 (17.07.08, Decision No85), assembly of 02.08.08 (26.07.08, Decision No87), assemblies 03; 04; 05; 06.08.08 (28.07.08, Decision No88; 89; 90; 91), assemblies of 07; 08; 09; 10.08.08 (02.08.08, Decisions of 92; 93; 94; 95), assemblies of 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20.08.08 (09.08.08, Decisions No96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103), assemblies of 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26.08.08 (11.08.08, Decisions No104; 105; 106; 107; 108; 109), assemblies of 27; 28; 29; 30.08.08 (14.08.08, Decisions No110; 111; 112; 113), assemblies of 31.08.08, 01.09.08 (15.08.08, No114, 115), assemblies 12; 13; 14; 16.09.08 (08.09.08, Decisions No128; 129; 130; 132), assemblies of 17; 18; 19.09.08 (13.09.08, Decisions No137; 138; 139), assembly of 17.10.08 (02.11.08, Decision No149), assembly of 28.11.08 (14.11.2008, Decision No157) etc.
Note: The numbers of decisions correspond to the number of applications that were submitted to the mayor’s office of Yerevan. They also made decisions which prohibited more than one assembly.
The overwhelming majority of the above-mentioned decisions were mainly made in accordance with the amendments to the Law “On Assembly” introduced after the Emergency rule of 01.03.2008. The decisions prohibiting the assemblies, contained references of conclusions of the Police and State Security Service of RA.
Particularly, the authorities of Yerevan prohibited the assembly which was planned to be held on 01.08.08 taking into consideration the conclusions of the Police of RA and State Security Service.
According to the official conclusions of the Police of RA (17.07.2008, No. 19/1-875) they had checked information that a number of people of mass assembly planned to be conducted by Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Aram Sargsyan (the party “Republic”) on the 1st, August, would provoke conflicts with the policemen and would commit mass disorder. Such information is a ground to conclude that if the assembly and the demonstration are not prohibited, they would pose a serious threat for the lives and health of demonstrators, it would violate public order and endanger public safety, and it would restrict the constitutional rights and freedoms of other people”.
According to the official conclusion of State Security Service of RA (17.07.2008, No. 39/2457) in if Levon Ter-Petrosyan held an assembly on the 1st, August, some groups and individuals supporting him, would actively provoke conflicts with law enforcement bodies. According to the same information the demonstrators would commit actions violating the constitutional order, as well as they would commit illegal actions of public disorder and against the representatives of the Armenian authorities.
As the organizers of the assemblies claimed they failed to obtain copies of “official conclusions” from Yerevan Municipality, which were the basis for prohibiting the assemblies. The representative of Yerevan Municipality did not provide these documents saying that the approvals referred only to the person who submitted the notification (there are audio records of those discussions), though under the pressure of the European Institutions some amendments were made to the Law “On Assembly, according to them a legal norm came into force and the assembly organizers acquired the right to question those “official conclusions” in court.
The representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan prohibited the mass public assemblies of the 9th April, the 8th, the 9th, the 16th and 17th of May, the 1st August by his decisions of 01.04.2008 No35, 03.04.2008 No60, 08.05.2008 No64, 17.07.2007 No85. Though all the assemblies were prohibited by the authorities, they did take place. Those assemblies were exceptionally peaceful, and the “predictions” of the Police and State Security Service did not come true.
After the assemblies, the organizers requested information from the Police and State Security Service if they recorded any illegal actions within those assemblies. According to the official correspondence of the Police and State Security Service of RA (21.04.08 No 8/6-109; 27.08.08 No 19/2-1044; 27.08.08 No 3/23-111; 06.10.08 No 3/23-129) no illegal acts were recorded during the assemblies. However, they made the same “official conclusions” regarding the upcoming assemblies.
The representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan in his decision referred to Article 13, part 1, point 3 of the Law on Assemblies, which says: “mass public assembly can be prohibited only in cases, when … 3) there are grounds defined by the article 9 of the present law”.
According to Article 9, paragraph 4, point 3 of the Law on Assembly
“3) if there are sufficient grounds that the assembly will pose a direct threat of violence breaking or it can endanger state security, public order, public’s health and morality, people’s life and health, constitutional rights and freedoms of other people or the assembly has its purpose to overthrow the constitutional order, to incite racial, national and religious hatred or can provoke mass disorders or to inflict damage to the state, community, physical or legal persons.
These data can be considered as trustworthy if the Police and State Security Service of RA have officially issued a well-grounded conclusion to this end. The same order exists for taking a decision on elimination of such grounds”.
The definition of Article 9, paragraph 4, point 3 of the Law “On Assembly” is not clear. These refer to the following parts:
What is the order according to which the Police and/or State Security Service of RA gives the grounds (the above mentioned official conclusions) to prohibit the assembly?
Do they issue an “official conclusion” on their own or do they have to do it?
If they are forced, then who forces them and when, and also how are they forced to do it?
When the Police and State Security Service produce an “official conclusion”, are they forced to do it?
Who shall they present this “official conclusion” to?
Do they give the “official conclusion” in a written form or orally, is it a subject to be registered in the “Registry of Normative Acts” and in newsletter “Republic of Armenia” and/or by “Haylur” news program, or is it a secret document and it can not be provided to the person who wants to acquaint himself with the materials of administrative proceedings?
If the “official conclusion” is a document, shall it have a number and date?
Is “the official conclusion” served upon a concrete person in order to deprive him of the right to hold peaceful assemblies or is it given to anyone?
Does “the official conclusion” refer to a concrete type of an event or to all types of the right to hold peaceful assemblies?
Is the “official conclusion” considered to be an only and appropriate fact to consider the “data” as grounded, or shall the authors of it mention in this document that the data are “grounded” and “checked”?
Can the “official conclusion” be appealed against by itself or shall it be argued at court as regards the decision prohibiting mass public event or shall the Administrative Court refer to its legitimacy in an “ex officio” capacity etc.

An officially grounded conclusion issued by the Police and State Security Service does not mean in itself that a given mass public event shall be prohibited. By perceiving such an aim, a term “can” should not be used in the legislation.
Under the conditions of the conclusions issued by the Police and State Security Service, in one case a person who submitted an application to hold an assembly, was denied the right to hold it, but in another case an applicant was allowed to hold an assembly (see below). This fact proofs that the term “can” is used arbitrary by Administrative Authority.
Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides that the freedoms can be restricted under the grounds and conditions of the article 11, point 2. The Convention authorizes the restrictions on those freedoms only if:
this restriction is provided by national legislation of the respondent state,
the restriction perceives any legal aim or aims provided by the article 11, point 2 of the Convention,
the restriction is necessary in democratic society,

In order to decide whether the disputable interference for the assemblies is legitimate in each and every concrete case, it is necessary to do the following test:
it is necessary to find out if the disputable restriction is provided by law,
it is necessary to find out if the restriction provided by the article 11, point 2 perceives any legal aim. If the restriction is provided by law and perceives the legal aim provided by the article 11, point 2, it is required to find out if such a restriction is necessary in a “democratic society”. In case if the disputable restriction does not satisfy the requirement “provided by law”, there will be no necessity to continue the examination: the violation of this requirement already means the violation of the Article 11.

The requirement “provided by law” of the restrictions of freedoms provided by the mentioned articles, first of all provides the existence of law drafted and published by the Parliament of RA. However, the existence of this law does not mean that the requirement of the claim provided by law is satisfied.
The European Court of Human Rights poses several requirements for the quality of law. According to the case law of the Court the necessary law qualities are the availability and forseeability of law. Particularly, in the point 49 of the judgment of the case Sandy Times vs. United Kingdom provides: “an expression “provided by law” means the following two requirements”. The first one: the right shall be available; the citizens shall clearly understand which legal norms are used for corresponding conditions. The second one: a norm can not be considered a “law”, if it is not defined in a quite right way, which will enable the citizens to correspond their behavior with the law. A citizen will be able to ask some advice and foresee the consequences of a given action (see also the judgment of the case Rotaru vs. Romania, point 52; the judgment of the case Aman vs. Switzerland, point 50).
Therefore it means that the norm on the Law on Assembly, by the implementation of which the assemblies are banned, does not correspondent to the standard “law”.
According to Article 43 of the Constitution of RA, the restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen can not exceed the framework defined by international commitments and obligations of Armenia.
According to the above mentioned norms and legal principles of a state provided by Constitution, the primary goal of the state is to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined by the Constitution, and the State shall put into practice the implementation of those rights. In the present case, it is the right to hold peaceful assemblies.
The right to peaceful assembly is an exceptional right. It can be restricted, but according to the Constitution, this restriction can be limited beyond the international obligations taken by a State and can not be overstepped. The scope and the content of these commitments are mentioned in many international documents, which form integrity with the legislation of RA, as well as they are mentioned in the papers of the European Court of Human Rights.
Some of the above mentioned principles of the restrictions of the right to assembly are provided in the “principles of peaceful assemblies” composed by the Council of Observers of OSCE/ODHIR on the issues of peaceful assemblies. It envisages such grounds for restrictions as protection of public order, health and morals, protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as well as safety for public and national security. At the same time the Council of Observers mentioned about an uncertainty of the term “public order” for prohibition or discontinuation of the peaceful assembly. Neither the hypothetic risk for public disorder, nor the society which is hostile can be a legal basis to prohibit the peaceful assemblies. Preliminary restrictions for an assembly, which are used in case of not so serious violations, shall be known as not an adequate mean. In case of any violation, it is necessary to combat according to the fact of violation, which is means by bringing to responsibility, and not by using preventive means (Stankov and “Ilinden” United Macedonian organization vs. Bulgaria (2001), point 94).
As regards the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the Council of Observers states: “Regulating authority shall find a proper balance between the most important rights for holding assemblies and the rights of people who live, work, shop, trade or make business in the area of assemblies. Therefore, a mere fact to terminate the assembly or even its reactions can not be reasons for preliminary restrictions. Taking into consideration the importance of tolerance in any democratic society, it is necessary to establish a high limit of permissibility. Only in case if this limit is violated, it can be defined that this or that public assembly is accompanied by groundless violations of rights and freedoms of other people.
There are recorded cases when, in case of “official conclusions”, the representative of Yerevan Municipality rejected the application of one organization to hold an assembly, but approved the notice of another one.
Thus, the representative of Yerevan Municipality prohibited the assemblies which were planned to be held in the Liberty Square of Yerevan on the 18th, 20th, 23rd and 25th April by the decisions No. 49, 50, 51, and 52 made on 15.04.2008. The grounds for the above mentioned decisions were “official conclusions” of the Police of RA (14.04.08, No 19/1-396) and State Security Service (12.04.08 No 39/810), which spread to all possible applicants and all forms of assemblies in Yerevan. However, the representative of Yerevan Municipality in their decision of 17.04.08, No 53 took into consideration the application of “ARF Dashnaktsutyun”. They planned to hold a public event on 24.04.08.
In case their rights were violated the organizers of assemblies pressed for their rights both before Mayor of Yerevan in an administrative order and before the Administrative Court. However, none of them referred to the claims of assembly organizers (all administrative claims remained unanswered).
Another reason for prohibiting the assemblies was the internal letter of any subdivision of mayor’s office of Yerevan or any administrative act to hold a cultural event in the area of planned assembly.
Particularly: According to the decision of the representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan (12.06.08., No 80) the basis for prohibiting the assembly of 20.06.2008 was the order of Mayor of Yerevan (05.06.08, 108-A). According to that order events with a name “Little Yerevanian” should take place in the Liberty Square on 09.06.2008. The above mentioned order was not officially published, therefore the assembly organizers could not know about it. The representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan did not offer the organizers an alternative place for holding an assembly; moreover, he prohibited the holding of an assembly. The legitimacy of his decision (12.06.08, No 80) was claimed in Administrative court of Yerevan, however, the Court rejected the claim.
The assembly of ARF Dashnaktsutyun planned to be held on 02.09.2008 near Matenadaran was prohibited by the decision of the representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan (22.08.08 No. 120). The decision was reasoned as there would be events dedicated to knowledge and education near the places of all cultural centers within the 1st and 2nd September. The ground was the letter of Chief of the Education Department of mayor’s office of Yerevan (27.08.08, No. 12/01). The legitimacy of the decision of the representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan (22.08.08, No. 120) was claimed in Administrative Court and the Court satisfied the claim (the assembly took place).
Note: ARF Dashnaktsutyun is one of the four parties forming the pro-governmental coalition; it has MPs and other employers in the Parliament of RA and in other executive authorities.
The assemblies of Levon Ter-Petrosyan and the Party “Republic” planned to be held near Matenadaran within September the 12th and 16th, 2008 were prohibited by the decisions of the representative of mayor’s office of Yerevan (08.09.2008, No. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132). The reason was that, according to the order of Mayor of Yerevan (29.08.08, 169-A) events, which were planned beforehand, should take place starting from August the 30th near Matenadaran. The organizers of assemblies filed a claim to Administrative Court before the assembly of 11.09.08, but the claim is still pending court proceedings.
According to the RA Law “On Assemblies” and “On Administrative Principles and Administrative Proceedings”, hearings shall take place in the premises of the local authorities as regards the consideration of a notice on assemblies. This procedure is called Discussion as defined by Article 12 of the Law “On Assembly. It provides the person who submitted a notice for holding an assembly with procedural rights which are present in administrative procedure of any legal state, as well as with the right “to be heard”. However, local authorities in many cases do not provide persons submitting a notice for holding an assembly with the right “to be heard”, they do not inform about the place and date of the discussions. These discussions mostly took place without the authors of notices and the decisions prohibiting assemblies were made neglecting the procedural rights of the applicants.
The decisions prohibiting the assemblies of Levon Ter-Petrosyan of May the 3rd, 7th, 11th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, 25th, 2008; the assemblies of the party “Republic” of October the 2nd, 17th, 2008; the assemblies of the staff of “Bjni” Mineral Waters Factory planned to be held in November and December were adopted without inviting the authors of the above mentioned notices to the discussion process.
The issue of violations of the right to peaceful assemblies was subject to a particular scrutiny in Resolutions 1609 and 1620 adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In particular, the Assembly deplored the clashed between the protesters and the police which resulted in human casualties. It also stated that detention of persons on seemingly artificial charges after participation in the protests can only point to political motivation of such acts. In general, the PACE stated that freedom of assembly must be guaranteed in both law and practice, in compliance with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT

Since the time of its independence Armenia has adopted almost all international human rights documents including the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and two optional protocols to the European Convention.
According to Article 19 of the UN Convention against Torture, the state parties to the Convention shall submit to the Committee Against Torture reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention within one year after the entry of the Convention into force, and then they should submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and any other report the Committee may request. However, in violation of the above-mentioned Article, Armenia has failed to present to the Committee any report on torture and its prevention in Armenia following the first and the second periodic reports submitted in the years of 1996 and 1999 respectively. Also, despite the fact that Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture clearly defines torture as “…pain or suffering inflicted by … a public official or other person acting in an official capacity…”.
As regards the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CPT), it had number of critical remarks as regards the prevention of torture activities implemented by the Armenian authorities and called upon the Armenian authorities that effective measures should be taken without further delay to ensure that the detention of persons in police establishments was always duly recorded and that the time-limits of police custody are strictly adhered to in practice. Separately should be mentioned such calls as to ensure, if necessary through legislative amendments that all persons deprived of their liberty by the police – irrespective of their category – are granted the right to inform a relative or a third party of their choice of their situation from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty; and also to ensure that the right of access to a lawyer for all categories of persons deprived of their liberty applies effectively from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty by the police (and not only when a protocol of detention is drawn up).
From 15 to 18 of March 2008 a delegation of the CPT composed of Marc Neve (Belgian), Ivan Jankovic (Serbian) and Geoge Tugushi (Georgian), Petya NESTOROVA (Head of Division) of the Committee's Secretariat, and assisted by Derrick POUNDER, Professor of forensic medicine, University of Dundee (United Kingdom) carried out a visit to Armenia. The main purpose of the visit was to examine the treatment of persons detained in relation to events which followed the Presidential election in Armenia. The delegation interviewed some eighty persons held at Nubarashen, Vardashen and Yerevan-Kentron Prisons, the Temporary holding facility of the National Security Service and the Holding Centre of Yerevan City Police Department. In addition, the delegation visited the Main Department for Combating Organised Crime and Kentron District Police Division in Yerevan. In the course of its visit, the CPT's delegation held discussions with Gevork Danielyan, Minister of Justice, Ararat Mahtesyan, First Deputy Head of Police, Aram Tamazyan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Shota Vardanyan, Director of the Republican Centre of Forensic Medicine, and Armen Harutyunyan, Human Rights Defender. The delegation also met with representatives of non-governmental organisations and with defence lawyers. At the end of the visit, the delegation presented its preliminary observations to the Armenian authorities.
Touching upon the national legislation, Article 17 of the Armenian Constitution provides that no one shall be subjected to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Arrested, detained and convicted persons have the right to humane treatment and to respect of dignity. The Criminal Code of Armenia, and its Article 9, part 3 provides that during a criminal investigation process no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment or kept in demeaning conditions. In the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia there is Article 119 which provides penalty for acts of torture. However, both its content and the punishment severity are substandard and do not correspond to the general notion of torture as defined by basic international documents.
In clear negligence of the requirements of the international structures, throughout the year of 2008 oppositional activists and simple oppositional supporters were abused and ill-treated by the law-enforcement bodies upon an acquiescence, or direct participation of the Prosecution. And in general, torture and inhuman treatment was widely used by police during the investigation of crimes. The use of torture by police authorities often takes place at the moment of arrest and preliminary testimony, i.e. before issuance of detention order by the court. Persons suspected in convincing a crime are especially unprotected at that phase of investigation. Even the fact that evidence obtained under torture could be assessed by court as illegal does not stop use of torture by police detectives and investigators. Unfortunately, cases of torture are frequently tolerated by government and judicial authorities and there is lack of public awareness about the scale of inhuman treatment of detainees and prisoners. Judges usually ignore the claims of the defendants and their defense lawyers about this or that testimony being obtained by investigation under torture or as a result of inhuman treatment.
However, the most problematic is the lack of public concern about the situation with torture and insufficient attention paid by the government towards the elimination of torture at the stage of preliminary arrest and detention.
In July 2008 Helsinki Association applied to the Judicial Department and the Police Department of Armenia seeking to obtain information if there were any criminal cases filed under Article 119 and if a law-enforcement official has been convicted as a result from the time it acquired force on 01 August 2003 till 1 July 2008. After re-applying for several times to the above-mentioned public bodies it was eventually found out that not only the figure of such cases presented by the Police and the Judicial Department was different, but also the Judicial Department stated in its response to Helsinki Association that there had not been a single case when either a police officer or any other law-enforcement official had been ever convicted under that article. Nevertheless, Helsinki Association possesses vast material based on cases of use of torture by police-officers in the year of 2008.
In the early morning of 1March 2008 the law-enforcement agencies of Armenia with the support of the special police force attacked the oppositional sit-in in the Liberty Square in the centre of Yerevan, bringing down tents and hitting people. As a result of violent police actions many persons who were at that time at Liberty Square received multiple injuries.

In the morning of 1 March 2008 during the forceful and violent dispersal Samvel Harutyunyan, an oppositional supporter, was brutally beaten and driven to the ground. He was put handcuffs, and taken into a police-car where beatings continued. As Seda Harutyunyan, the sister of the victim told experts of Helsinki Association, on early morning of 2 March 2008 a person who did not present himself called her and said that her brother was in police detention. Despite her efforts to see or get in contact with her brother, it was not earlier than 4 March that she saw him in the Kentron District Court of Yerevan. The court held its session behind close doors and authorized his detention on remand despite clear violation of 72 hour arrest period as he was already kept for more than that time. Samvel Harutyunyan was not told about his rights, particularly, his right to have an advocate from Public Defenders Office as envisaged by Armenia law. The prosecution assigned him a lawyer on their own choice without asking his consent, whom S. Harutyunyan refused as he doubted his impartiality. Despite Samvel’s numerous complaints of his bad health conditions – headache, spine-ache etc. he was neither provided any medical help, nor were his wounds and bruises registered. Moreover, he was put in one cell with 8 habitual criminals. According to Seda Harutyunyan, she filed a number of complaints both to the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ombudsman Office where she stated about the abuses and ill-treatment of her brother seeking to bring to liability those responsible. However, she herself fell a victim of police arbitrariness as the policemen came to search her home without producing a search warrant. One of the Prosecutor’s Office investigators threatened her saying that she would face problems if she went on complaining about her brother’s situation. Helsinki Association is in possession of a camera shot which contains a picture of Samvel Harutyunyan’s face with bruises and traces of beatings.

Gagik Shamsyan, a journalist with Aravot and Chorord Ishkhanutyun newspapers witnessed the violent crowd dispersal in the Liberty Square. Though he had informed the police that he was a journalist, he was severely beaten by the police officers and his camera was smashed into pieces. Then he was taken to a police department where he in acute need of medical aid, was subjected to psychological pressure. Soon after he lost his conscience, but police tried to bring him into consciousness by splashing water on his face. He was released only at night after intervention by the Ombudsman. It should be mentioned that all the time he was denied legal counseling.

During the trial of Aram Bareghamyan, an oppositional activist, the accused stated to court that despite the fact that he had a head injury sustained during the dispersal of the oppositional rally on Liberty Square, he was released from hospital without fully being recovered. Right in the hospital he was arrested by police, which took him to a police station and prosecution, where he was interrogated. According to the accused, the law enforcement officials did not react on his allegations that he had a wounded head which created a splitting head-ache and for about two days continued the interrogation. Though A. Bareghamyan stated at court that the results of the interrogation should be annulled, no such thing happened. He was finally convicted for a lengthy period of imprisonment.

As separate issues the infringements of the detainees' rights and falsifications of the detention records should be mentioned. This refers to the wide-spread practice of bringing a person to a police station as witness, where he/she is kept as much as necessary to obtain necessary information.
In some cases a person suspected in an offence, was not even given a status of a witness, so they keep him/her in the police station under pretence of conducting “an operative interview” or implementing “operative actions.” Such “interviews” are not defined by law, though it’s natural to suppose the free will of the one interviewed. In reality, however, the person called for such an interview is virtually deprived of liberty and is unable to break the interview at his own disposal.
One of the most perpetrated rights of detainees is the right to have an access to an advocate from the first moment of detention. Though this right is enshrined in both the Constitution and the law on criminal procedure and other documents, the investigative authorities try to restrict the access of advocates to the detainees not only in the first hours but also days after the arrest.
This is well explained by the fact that there are no effective measures of legal protection against violations of the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.

Later on the day of 1 March 2008, as the opposition gathered in another place of Yerevan, police, with support of regular army squads, applied fire-arms, heavy military machinery and violently dispersed the rally which left at least 10 persons dead and hundreds injured.
In the aftermath of the events of 1 March 2008 the authorities launched a major hunt for the oppositional activists, arresting and detaining them, without securing their basic human rights, such as legal counseling, prompt explanation of charges etc. Many were beaten and tortured while in detention.
Vahram Mkhitaryan, an oppositional activist, was arrested during the dispersal of the opposition on March 1. He was taken to Erebuni Police department where he was severely beaten and held incommunicado for three days till March 3. During all that time he was denied legal representation, he was taken to the prosecutor’s office where he was beaten with batons as they tried to force him to testify against himself. Presently, they brought charges against him as the case is still pending investigation. The detention order was ruled by the court as late as 5 March, in clear violation of 72-hour time-limit for detention. As V. Mkhitaryan’s father told Helsinki Association he saw his son only on 19 March when he was in remand prison of Nubarashen. There he learned that his son refused to sign any documents, thus protesting against his ill-treatment and refused to have a lawyer assigned automatically by the investigation agency without asking his consent.

On March 4 Kristofor Elazyan, a former police-officer and his brother Arman Elazyan, then police-officer were called to central police department allegedly to clarify some issues. However, while in police they were shown video material which depicted rigorous participation of Kristophor Elazyan in the oppositional protest of 1 March, 2008. Having shown the video footage, police officers, including the chief of the central police department started heavily beating them with punches and kicks. For several days they were kept in police detention where they were subjected to abuses and torture. They were denied any legal representation or medical aid. Then they were separately taken to the Special Investigation Department of the General Prosecution where they were beaten up till loss of consciousness. One of the prosecution investigators said: “Go and kill them in the yard and later we say they were shot dead as they attempted to escape”. Since then Arman and Qristophor were taken to different places. Arman Elazyan was forced to sign a paper of his self-dismissal from police-service. However, this did not prevent an order from the Chief of Police of Armenia of 10 days in detention for violation of police service regulations. Arman Elazyan was so bad that he was taken to Police Hospital, where he nevertheless was not offered any medical help, while a doctor told him that for him the best recovery would be to spend 10 days in detention. As regards Kristofor Elazyan, a criminal action was brought against him for allegedly assaulting police-officers during the events of 1 March and he was subsequently sentenced to 3 years. Allegations of abuse made both by Kristofor and his defense lawyer have not resulted in any result till now, though the prosecutor at trial of K. Elazyan stated that a probe into the allegations had been launched.

Ruben Voskanyan, an oppositional activist, was arrested during the events of 1 March 2008 and taken to police where he was subjected to abused and torture during a long period. Though neither advocates nor the relatives were allowed to visit him at the remand center, it was made known by his co-detainees that his he was in a heavy medical condition. During the ensuing trial his advocate, Vardan Zournachyan was astonished to find out that his defendant refused his services and chose another defense lawyer. As a result of speedy trial, R. Voskanyan pleaded guilty to all counts of charge, testified against his co-supporters and was handed up a conditional sentence. No proceedings into the allegations of torture have been initiated. The same refers to the case of David Aghayan ( 5 years’ imprisonment), David Arakelyan (suspended sentence) and Mushegh Saghatelyan (5 years’ imprisonment).

In accordance with Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia, grounds for initiation of a criminal case are statements of physical persons, either oral or written. According to the second sub-paragraph of the same article, oral statement on a committed crime made during trial shall be put down in trial records. Also, in accordance with Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia, evidence obtained under violence, threat, trickery, humiliation or other illegal acts cannot underlie a criminal charge. However, in clear violation of the above-mentioned legal provisions, both the Prosecution and the courts continued to proceed with the case despite torture and ill-treatment allegations. In some cases, upon submission of such allegations, the prosecutor tells the judge that a separate investigation has been launched into the allegation which is on-going. However, as practice shows, such investigations are conducted slowly, ineffectively without letting an advocate of the victim of torture to get consulted with the case-file. And the most important here is that such an allegation does not suspend the original trial, statements allegedly taken under duress are considered as legitimate and conviction sentences are handed down. In a word, investigations into alleged ill-treatment are unreasonably lengthy, while evidence taken is not properly assessed which brings about unreasonable decisions on such matters.
In the case of Mkrtich Abrahamyan, the accused was subjected to beatings in the police-station right after the arrest. Though the beatings were also documented by the visit of the Ombudsman, no subsequent torture case has been filed by the prosecution agencies.
The “incommunicado” detention was also a widely used method of the Armenian law-enforcement officials and prosecution agencies in 2008. In practice Armenian law enforcement agencies are unwilling to issue official summons in order to call a person to the police station or prosecution office. This practice is quite easy-to-do, making it impossible to bring to responsibly those guilty for it. Helsinki Association receives many statements from ordinary citizens who claim that their relative/friend is missing, while in several days they find out he/she is detained.
Thus, in the case of Borik Arabachyan, the trial observation group of Helsinki Association found out from the wife of the accused that she and the relatives did not know the whereabouts of B. Arabachyan for 6-7 days. Afterwards, they found out that B. Arabachyan was all those days in the Police Department of Arabkir District of Yerevan being subjected to abuses all that time.
In reference to manifestations of torture and ill-treatment in the penal institutions, it should be mentioned that violence toward the detainees by prison personnel does not pursue the aim of helping investigation agencies to conduct an investigation.
It should be mentioned that though Nubarashen is a remand prison, all the former death-row prisoners whose sentences were changed to life-imprisonment and also those sentenced to life imprisonment according to the new Criminal Code, are kept in the same institution with remand prisoners and are subjected to the same inner regulations as those designed for remand prisoners. For example, they are allowed to have outdoor walks only one per day for one hour while these walks are prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays.

In reference to the investigation of ill-treatment or even torture in the military units, it should be stated that the medical personnel of military units does not react in a proper way by not reporting to criminal agencies that this or that injury can be attributed to the manifestation of torture and ill-treatment.
In the matters of alleged torture and ill-treatment in the army, the investigative authorities and the prosecution agencies are making everything they can in order to conceal such practices, by changing qualifications of crimes with self-injuries, suicide and death as a result of enemy fire.
On 15 May 2008 Andranik Hayrapetyan, an Armenian national, was killed while on military service in Nagorno-Karabakh republic. According to an official version, he was shot dead by an Azeri sniper. There were many abrasions and bruises which were of pre-mortal nature. Inlet wound of the shot was on the bad of the corpse, which, according to the investigation agencies, was due to the fact that the soldier was standing back to the front-line when the shot was fired. On 16 May 2008 a forensic-medical expertise was carried out in Yerevan. Helsinki Association did manage to take shots of the dead body. They all contain pictures of bruises and abrasions. The investigation is still underway.
On 9 June 2008 Hayk Hovhannisyan, a soldier on mandatory military service attempted to commit a suicide for two times first by self-drowning and then by self-hanging. After the failed attempts he was taken to the military hospital of the town of Martuni, from where he was transferred to Yerevan Military Hospital. As mother of the soldier stated in her letter to Helsinki Association, her son was mentally fit and he was never on the register of a mental hospital. At the same time it was found out that the reason for attempted suicides was the fact that he was sexually abused by his co-servicemen. H. Hovhannisyan was removed from military service meanwhile the case into the rape was discontinued.
On 9 May 2008 Narek Galstyan was found dead in a patrol tank in a military unit close to Goris allegedly from asphyxiation by patrol exhalation. The case into the death was discontinued due to the lack of crime signs, while head of the investigation department of the ministry of defense of Armenia in his letter to the parents of the deceased, mentioned that their son died of an acute poisoning by patrol fumes. At the same time it was written that the tank was empty with remnants of patrol in the dints of the tank only. The case has been discontinued.
On 15 August 2008 Artur Grigoryan, a soldier serving near Goris in Armenia, was taken to the medical department of the military unit with multiple head-bone fractures. Though in a serious medical condition, it was not earlier than two days after that he was transferred to Central Military Hospital where he underwent a surgery. While the soldier was in coma, the military prosecution agency adopted a version of his falling from the upper bench of two-storey military bed. However, as the soldier came into consciousness, he told the investigators that he was beaten by his company commander who broke his head. The commander was soon arrested but later released. The investigation is still underway but it is already flawed as till now A. Grigoryan was not officially recognized as a victim. As to the company commander – a charge against him brought not for infliction of corporal injuries, but for abuse of power. The case is still under investigation.
On August 15 2008 Artur Grigoryan, who was on mandatory military service in military unit 60369, was severely beaten by Davit Hayrapetyan, chief unit commander. As a result he sustained multiple injuries of head and body and was taken to hospital where he underwent a surgery after spending 5 days in coma. Some time later he was discharged from hospital with post-operational bone defect diagnosis and was subsequently declared unfit for military service as having 2nd degree disability.
A criminal case against Davit Hayrapetyan was filed by the prosecution and the court proceedings followed soon. On December 15 the Common Jurisdiction Court of Syunik Region of Armenia issued a summons to Artur Grigoryan in order to testify before the court. Though the latter had applied to the Syunik court seeking to change the venue of the trial bringing it closer to his residence in Yerevan because of his health condition, the court dismissed his request, held a trial in his absence and delivered the most lenient sentence to D. Hayrapetyan of 2 years’ imprisonment. According to the court verdict, D. Hayrapetyan was found guilty under Article 375 part 1 of the CC of Armenia (power abuse) in contradiction to Article 112 (Intentional infliction of grave injuries) as requested by the injured party. It did not contain any provision on compensation for material and moral damage as well.
The case of solider death in the army allegedly as a result of abuses and ill-treatment was widespread throughout 2007 with trials still underway in 2008. This refers to the cases of Tigran Aghajanyan, Gegham Sergoyan, Hovhannes Miltonyan and many others.
It should be stated that in general Armenian law provides additional guarantees for the right to lodge a complaint for persons kept in temporary detention cells, isolation cells and places of deprivation of freedom. According to the acting rules applications and complaints submitted by detainees to the prosecutor, court or other state authority, are not subject to censorship by the administration of the detention place. However, in practice, there are difficulties in the exercise of that right. This especially refers to persons detained in temporary isolation cells in an attempt to lodge a complaint against a police officer for an abuse committed before an arrested person was transferred from a police department to the temporary isolation cell. This is related to the fact that both TIC and the police belong to one and the same authority. Frequently, TIC is situated right in the police department, while police officers have access to the person kept there.
Officers of the prosecutor’s office supervising the legality of persons kept in TIC are not properly reacting to oral complaints made by the arrested persons.
In reference to the issue of ensuring security for those who complain against torture and ill-treatment, this information is not kept secret by the prosecution agencies. As a result, this information frequently becomes known by law enforcement officials who are suspected in the abuses. As a result, person who lodged a complaint against an abuse as well as the witnesses, become victims of persecution and pressure by officials involved in the alleged offence, or their colleagues.
Thus, it can be summarized that despite the fact that during the recent years Armenia has adopted and ratified many international documents referring to human rights standards, as well as changed or amended its legislation in compliance with them, torture and ill-treatment still remain a major problem. Ill-treatment for extorting evidence, holding incommunicado and without legal counseling is a wide-spread phenomenon. In the opinion of the Helsinki Association until the attitude of the police and prosecution changes, no legislative or any other means will provide an effective protection against torture and abuse. In reality, the change of Armenian mentality towards liberal European thinking is required. As soon as the Armenian people rid themselves of the gloomy Soviet past and stand on the European democracy track, real progress will be achieved.

4. RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND EFFECTIVE REMEDIES

Despite the fact that both Armenian constitution and the laws clearly define the right to fair trial and equality before the law, the Armenian judiciary is still very dependant on the executive assuming the role of the executor of the power's will. In practice, Armenia does not have adequate mechanisms to guarantee the principle of the rule of law. The judiciary is not independent with high level of corruption. The lack of independence of judges was clearly illustrated in the year of 2008 when the trial of oppositional leaders and supporters took place.
In the hearings and in the process of reaching a judgment, judges were confined to the evidence produced by the prosecution. In judicial hearings, the principle of the equality of arms was violated in that motions of lawyers were often rejected without any reasonable justifications. As a result, public attitude towards the judicial system is markedly adverse. The overwhelming majority of the Armenian population does not have confidence in judges. Both as in previous years and until now the Armenian courts fail to effectively provide human rights protection and ensure the supremacy of law. And the events of 2008 are a vivid example of this.
In less than two months after the notorious events of 1 March, 2008 and throughout the rest of the year the Armenian courts were actively involved in convicting the oppositional activists or simply oppositional supporters in most cases for defying the orders of the law enforcement officials or insulting and using force against them.
On 17 April and 25 June 2008 the Parliamentary Assembly adopted two resolutions, namely Resolution 1609 and 1620 related to Armenia which contained a number of requirements to the Armenian authorities, such as:
- to initiate immediately an independent, transparent and credible inquiry into the events on 1 March 2008 and the circumstances that led to them;
- to release all persons detained on seemingly artificial and politically motivated charges who did not personally commit any violent acts or serious offences;
- the cases under Articles 300 and 225 of the Criminal Code should be dropped unless there is strong evidence that the accused have personally committed acts of violence or ordered, abetted or assisted to commit them;
- a verdict based solely on a single police testimony without corroborating evidence cannot be acceptable;
- authorities should step up their efforts to establish a truly independent judiciary and enhance the public’s trust in the courts.
However, the Armenian judiciary did fail to conduct a truly impartial and fair trial of persons charged for their participation at oppositional protests. The trials were flawed both in terms of procedure and that of the substance.
In general, since accession of Armenia to the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has repeatedly called on the Armenian authorities to organize the judicial system in such a way as to guarantee its independence and impartiality – a key component for fair trial principle. This has been sounded in Resolution 1304 (8 iv.), Resolution 1361 (12 iii, 13), Resolution 1405, Resolution 1532 (5.3)
In an open negligence of the clear requirement of the PACE, in the majority of trials, such as the cases of David Aghayan, Chirstophor Elizyan, Tigran Baghdasaryan, Gagik Jangiryan, Armen Sargsyan, Khachik Gasparyan, Masis Ayvazyan, Artashes Matevosyan, Mkrtich Abrahamyan, Armen Avagyan the charges and subsequently the guilty verdicts were based solely on witness or victim testimony of police agents or law enforcement agents.
As regards those witnesses which were not representatives of the law-enforcement, during the trials a pressure on them was well-felt by the prosecutor if, for example, a witness refuted his testimony given during the police probe. Thus:
in the case of Arman Shahinyan a criminal action has been brought against a witness, namely Karen Hayrapetyan, who alleged that his incriminatory testimony given to the Prosecution bodies was fake as in fact he only signed under blank papers. Despite the fact that during the trial it was alleged by the defense counsel for several times that the very taking of testimony in police-station was in breach of domestic law as his defendant was questioned in the absence of legal representative though being a juvenile at that time and was in fact nothing but abducted by regional police-officer as no police prescription was served on him, the judge was reluctant to drop the case. The more so, the ensuing handwriting expertise was in breach of law as well as K. Hayrapetyan, already enrolled for military service, was taken to a judge’s room Judge Apinyan and an expert forced him to give samples of his handwriting in an absence of his advocate despite his requests. Ultimately, K. Hayrapetyan was found guilty and sentenced to 1 year in prison. He was taken into custody right from the court-room in his military uniform.
witnesses are brought to the prosecution agencies where they are subjected to pressure in order to give necessary for the Prosecution statements (in the above mentioned case of Arman Shahinyan another witness to the case had been beaten and intimidated in order to give incriminating testimony);
in the case of Vahagn Hareyan and Gevorg Ghazaryan 6 witnesses out of 9 testified before the court that they were kept in police detention for three days without food and drink where they were abused and forced to give evidence the prosecution agencies needed. One of the witnesses had no education at all, was illiterate and could not write; while the written statements “given” by him included words he could not understand when his statements were sounded at court.

In accordance with Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia, grounds for initiation of a criminal case are statements of physical persons, either oral or written. According to the second sub-paragraph of the same article, oral statement on a committed crime made during trial shall be put down in trial records. Also, in accordance with Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia, evidence obtained under violence, threat, trickery, humiliation or other illegal acts cannot underlie a criminal charge.
However, in clear violation of the above-mentioned legal provisions, both the Prosecution and the courts continued to proceed with the case despite the presence of such circumstances. Just for an appearance of concern, a prosecutor tells the judge that a probe has been launched into the allegations and no reaction whatsoever is being drawn to such allegations.
Thus, in the case of Borik Arabachyan, the trial observation group of Helsinki Association found out from the wife of the accused that she and the relatives did not know the whereabouts of B. Arabachyan for 6-7 days. Afterwards, they found out that B. Arabachyan was all those days in the Police Department of Arabkir District of Yerevan being subjected to abuses all that time.
In the case of Mkrtich Abrahamyan, the accused was subjected to beatings in the police-station right after the arrest. Though the beatings were also documented by the visit of the Ombudsman, no subsequent torture case has been filed by the prosecution agencies.
In the case of Kristofor Elazyan, who was a former police-officer, the accused was called to the police-station on 2 March where he faced charges for beating police officers on 1 March. On 8 March he was televised by the Armenian Public TV where he was shown as one of those who allegedly assaulted and beat police-officers. It could be noticed that his face bore traces of beatings and abuses. For 20 days he was denied legal representation, while during the trial his defense counsel stated to the judge that his defendant had been abused while in police detention. Though the prosecutor and the judge responded that the case of abuses had been filed by the prosecution, according to the defense council of Kristofor Elizyan, no investigation paper had even been shown to them.
In the case of Armen Sargsyan - he was arrested in the night of 3 March 2008 with a shot leg, but was denied medical aid until the wound started to fester two days after.
In the case of Ruben Voskanyan, the accused was detained in the police department for two months during which he denied any legal counseling and was severely beaten by the police officers who forced him to give incriminating evidence against Ashot Manukyan. As the trial into his case started, R. Voskanyan refused legal representation at court and was subsequently given a suspended sentence.
Qristofor Elizyan, David Arakelyan, Khachik Gasparyan, Armen Sargisyan, David Aghayan, Aram Bareghamyan – during the trials of these oppositional leaders and activists, the accused claimed before the judge that there were subjected to torture and ill-treatment both during the arrest and afterwards, while in police detention. In this regard, ether the prosecution and the judge drew no reaction to the allegation of ill-treatment or the prosecutor claimed before the judge (as required by Articles 175-180 of CPC of Armenia) that the case of abuses was already filed and a subsequent investigation had been launched. However, no advocate or victim has ever seen any investigation paper related to the case of police abuse. At the same time, in accordance with Article 25 of the Law on Prosecutor’s Office, the prosecution agencies are obliged to carry out prosecution supervision over the investigation agencies.
Judicial sentences handed down according to the same article of the Criminal Code for the similar deed and under the same mitigating circumstances defer greatly. Thus, in the case of Gevorg Ghazaryan and Vahagn Hareyan both accused were indicted for the same offence, but during the investigation V. Hareyan pleaded guilty to the charge for the act he did not commit and gave incriminating evidence against G. Ghazaryan. As a result, G. Ghazaryan was convicted under Article 225/2 and sentenced to 5 years in prison, while V. Hareyan was convicted under Article 38 and 225/1 (assistance to the perpetration of a crime), given 4 years suspended sentence and released.
In the case of David Arakelyan, charged under Article 316/1 (violent acts, not dangerous to life, against a representative of the authority) should be mentioned. According to the defense counsel, D. Arakelyan and also a number of other persons were brought to the first instance court of Kentron and Norq-Marash districts of Yerevan at 6 o'clock p.m. and tried without the presence of defense counsel; they were each given a suspended sentence of 1.6 month in prison. It should be noted that those who did not plead guilty to the charges and did not agree to speedy trial proceedings (as envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia), were sentenced to a real deprivation of liberty under the same charge (the case of Avagyan Armen who received 1.6 years of a real deprivation of liberty). It is noteworthy that in the case of Tigran Baghdasaryan, who was charged under the same Article (316/1) for allegedly beating 4 policemen, the accused was sentenced to a fine of 100,000 AMD ($330) even though he did not plead guilty or assist the investigation agencies. Thus, it is unclear based on what criteria the Armenian judges decide on what a punishment measure in a particular case should be.
Another clear example of unjustified attitude towards co-defendants charged with the same offence is the case of Gabriel Gabrielyan and Lavrent Gasparyan – the co-defendants. One of them, namely L. Gasparyan, though on pre-trial stage contested his statements before the general prosecution as given under duress, later in court maintained them and pleaded guilty. Those statements formed a basis for charges against his co-defendant, G. Gabrielyan, and also oppositional leaders. As a result, L. Gasparyan was given a suspended sentence while G. Gabrielyan, who did not plead guilty and denied any involvement in the prescribed charges, was given 7 years in prison.
Judge’s attitude towards the motions made by the defense is highly critical and negative, as judges, in the overwhelming majority of cases, dismiss motions made by the defense, such as inviting a new witness or conducting an expert examination.
In this regard the case of Armen Shahinyan should be mentioned where the defense side was rejected a motion to conduct an expert examination which could show that the defendant was physically unfit and could not commit any violent acts against the police-officers. As a separate example the case of Vardges Gaspari, person charged with acting violently against a representative of the authority without posing danger to his health, should be mentioned too. Despite relatively ” light” charge this case lasted for more than 6 months in the lowest instance only and marked a number of key procedural violations. In other words, the motions of the defense were groundlessly dismissed all the time they were filed; both the defense counsel and the defendant were virtually deprived of effectively exercising their right to pleadings. Quite concrete and consonant statements made during the trial by V. Gaspari to the fact that he was ill-treated and abused both during the police detention and while in remand prison brought about no result and the judge and the prosecutor did not react properly to those allegations. When the defense council started to protest against the unlawful actions of the judge, a criminal case was brought against him for court contempt which is under investigation now.
It’s noteworthy to mention that the list of the witnesses to be called to testify before the court is only composed of those witnesses who gave incriminating evidence during the investigation stage and whose testimony underline the charges brought. At the same time, Armenian judges are reluctant to call a witness as petitioned by the defense which creates an unequal situation between the prosecution and the defense. This was the issue in the case of Lavrent Gasparyan/Gabriel Gabrielyan, Tigran Baghdasaryan, Vardges Gaspari and many others.
As regards the work of mass media during court hearings, it should be mentioned that though the trials were public, judges did not allow journalists makings shots during trial, as they stated it intervened with dispensation of justice. They only allowed taking shots before the trial started. As any journalist tried to claim his professional duties, he/she was ordered to leave the court-room and even forcefully pushed out by the judicial bailiff. There are criminal cases brought against journalists for obstruction to justice (the case of Smbat Ayvazyan where Gagik Shamshyan and Gohar Veziryan were sent off and are now facing criminal charges).
In the trial of Gevorg Ghazaryan and Vahagn Hareyan, the judge Karine Ghazaryan sent out of the court-room with insulting words Marine Kharatyan , a journalist, for the reason that her voice-recorder device (SONY) was too noisy and impeded trial process.
In accordance with Article of 198 of the Judicial Code of Armenia, the tasks of the judicial bailiffs are:

1) Protection of the life, health, dignity, rights, and freedoms of the judge, parties to proceedings, and other persons in court from criminal and other unlawful encroachment;
2) Maintenance of the public order and security in the territory of the court;
3) Execution of court orders subject to immediate execution on the spot; and
4) Protection of court assets, buildings, and support premises.

However, in some cases (the case of Gagik Jangiryan, Smbat Ayvazyan) police-officers watched the entrance and allowed entry to the court building. It has become a customary thing that the court building is being surrounded by police squad and special task force armed with batons. Police-officers make orders to judicial bailiffs who obediently follow them, and also decided who should enter court-room. (There are cases when representatives of Helsinki Association refused to produce an ID and as a result they were refused entrance to the court-building by the police-officers).
Persons willing to visit a trial were subjected to personal search on a selective basis. There was a case when even a medicine against heart malfunction was being confiscated from a visitor. In the court-room, police-officers and judicial bailiffs decide where this or that person should take his sit. During some trials, police officers occupy front seats designed for the public allegedly for security reasons. There were cases when police agents in plainclothes occupied front rows, thus excluding any close vision of the trial participants.
In the case of Gabriel Gabrielyan, an oppositional supporter sentenced to imprisonment, Prosecutor A. Amirzadyan was personally instructing the bailiffs and the police officers where they should stand in the court-room in order to secure proper court proceedings. As a result, during the verdict delivery, no front seat benches were allowed for public to be occupied – they were occupied by security agents dressed in plainclothes. Complaints of the public that the standing bailiffs and policemen made it impossible to see all the trial participants brought no result.
As regards the work of the prosecution agencies, the trial observation showed that in many cases prosecutors at trials chose a passive, inactive strategy, did not make motions or objections to the actions of the defense side, which created an impression that the trial verdict had been pre-determined. This created an impression that the burden of proof had been long shifted to the defense side and not the indictment side.
Another noteworthy case is the trial of Mikaelyan Gurgen, who was charged with organizing mass disorder and detained for 2 month. However, during the trial, the prosecution at court refused to proceed with the charge after the defense lawyer produced a medical certificate of the accused being a second-degree disable person and who was put since 2002 into the list of out-patient treatment persons of one of the psychiatric clinics of Armenia diagnosed as a person having a chronic mental disorder as a result of a head injury.
As regards the length of detention without charge, which is 72 hours as provided by criminal procedure law, this time-limit was also frequently violated by both the police and the prosecution agencies.
For example, Khachik Gasparyan, an oppositional supporter, was arrested in the morning of 1 March 2008, whereas his detention order was issued by a judge in the evening of 4 March 2008. As the prosecutor stated in court in reply to the defense council’s remark about the violation of the time-limit, the 72-hour countdown starts to run not from the time a person is brought to the police-station, but from the time a detention protocol is being drawn up.
Despite the fact that release on bail pending trial is manifestly provided in Armenian legislation, the Armenian courts when ruling on detention orders are reluctant to consider it as an alternative to detention on remand. Except for a couple of cases, judges when ruling on detention orders did not consider the nature of the accusation or the personality of the accused. As related to the cases when release on bail has been ordered, it happened only after the accused were held in detention for several months already – this was evidenced in the case of Anush Havalyan and Gevorg Safaryan.
In general it should be said that reasonable time requirement for trials was complied with. Yet in some cases trials involving one accused and one charge only lasted for eight months – the case of Vazgen Gaspari, who was eventually found guilty and sentenced to one year imprisonment.
There have been cases when a person arrested and brought to police or prosecution was denied legal counseling though demanding one. In this case, an arrested person is either being deceived that there is no need for an advocate as he would soon be released or he is being prohibited from advocate services while being abused and ill-treated. This happened in the case of Armen Khurshudyan/Feliks Gevorgyan, both oppositional supported detained in the aftermath of the events of 1 March 2008. They stated before the court that on investigators of Special Investigation Department under the Prosecution Office, namely Tigran Tamamyan and Tsaturyan subjected them to abuses and ill-treatment beating them with billiards cue, rubber batons and using an electric shock device. As the detainees requested an advocate the investigators replied that it was them who would take a decision and them who would take a release order. When the case reached the court and in the remand prison F. Gevorgyan demanded that his advocate should visit him, he was surprised that instead of the advocate, the same investigator visited him and said that whatever the detainee had to say, it should be said to him. This fact makes clear that an advocate provided by the state with the help of the prosecution, still plays on the side and to the favor of the investigation and the prosecution.
There is an impression gained by visiting trials both related to 1 March events and in general, that advocates either from the Public Defenders Office, or individual advocates play a fictitious role during the court proceedings by ensuring the presence of a defense only. There were also cases when representative of a victim faces difficulties in trying to be legally represented at court. For example, Suren Ohanjanyan, the father of a late soldier, who died in the military unit allegedly from power cable strike, sought to have a lawyer but received a refusal from as much as 10 advocates. The reason for refusals was the dismay of advocates and their unwillingness to enter into a conflict with either the Ministry of Defence or the Military Prosecution office.
During the trial of Lavrent Gasparyan and Gabriel Gabrielyan it was quite clear by the conduct of L. Gasparyan’s defense council, Benjamin Minasyan, that he had already entered into an agreement with the prosecution and the judge and was simply executing their order to make his defendant maintain his statements given at the investigation stage and not refute them as he had tried to do. These statements underlay the charges against Gabriel Gabrielyan. It’s noteworthy that when reading out the verdict to the case, both Lavrent Gasparyan and Gabriel Gabrielyan were absent despite a clear legal requirement as they were in advance certain that the judge would give L. Gasparyan a conditional sentence unrelated to real deprivation of liberty. At the same time Gabriel Gabrielyan was given 7 years’ imprisonment.
The case-file of the so-called case of 7 (Shant Harutyunyan, Suren Sirunyan, Alik Arzumanyan, Grigor Voskerchyan, Sasun Mikaelyan Hakob Hakobyan, Myasnik Malkhasyan – the last three are former deputies deprived of their mandate after the events of 1 March 2008) is based solely on indictment papers of other persons, examinations of the site of incident. Some of those persons, who were accused persons, victims, civil plaintiffs, and especially witnesses – have the same status in the present case.
The judge presiding over the case should have declared self-dismissal as he was the judge who examined the cases of Mushegh Saghatelyan, Karen Tarkhanyan, Vardan Gasparyan. These cases were separated from one case of 1 March 2008 and all of those persons were finally found guilty and convicted. Basically, he has already been the judge in one and the same case. This is in clear violation of Article 90 of Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia which provides that if a judge shall not preside over one case for two or more times, an issue of impartiality would be raised as his concern would be to give a verdict of guilt as otherwise his previous verdicts on the same case would turn null and void.
The authorities still failed to present the police order which authorized the conduct of search for weapons on the Liberty Square in Yerevan in the morning of 1 March 2008. The same refers to the authorization to use special police tools for crowd dispersal.
The actions of police who used water-cannons and other equipment to disperse the crowed were unlawful as there is no document to certify that a notification had been given in advance to the General Prosecutor – a thing strictly required under police law. In general, the issue of using special police tools, including combat weapons was vague during the entire time of the investigation of the events of 1-2 March 2008. Both the General Prosecutor and his spokesman would insist that no combat weapon was used against the protesters. However, recently the Prosecutor’s Office has issues a statement which said that there was a sniper active during the dispersal. They also said grenades were used – though there is no word about it in the case-file.
During the investigation stage, the defense council filed a motion to the Prosecution Office seeking to find out if, besides combat grenades, other devices were used such as explosives, stunning or gas grenades. This motioned remained unanswered and did not find its way in the common case-file. Surprisingly enough, the former chief of police forces stated in the Parliament that Zarya-type tear-gas grenades were used against the demonstrators.
If taken separately, none of these 7 persons committed any anti-constitutional act. They just called on the gathered protesters to keep an orderly conduct and preserve public order.
The defense council filed another motion to obtain copies of questionings of such oppositional leaders who were present at the gathering site and whose presence is depicted in video footage. These are Aram Sargsyan, Ararat Zurabyan, Davit Shahnazaryan, Levon Zurabyan, Stepan Demirchyan, Ruzan Khachatryan and Karapet Rubinyan. This motion was refused as ungrounded by the investigation authority. The motion to obtain the copies of the questionings of Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Levon Zurabyan had the same destiny – they were dismissed but the reply of the investigation agency was that they had never been questioned.
It is noteworthy that though the charge is based on an assumption that all these 7 persons had reached a preliminary agreement to commit an offence and worked out a plan of actions for each of them, there are persons among them who do not know each other at all.
It should also be mentioned that the case-file does not contain the questioning of senior representatives of police. Though the defense issued a motion to this effect, it was dismissed too.
Currently the case of 7 is on early court proceedings stage.

5. FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Nowadays there are 65 religious organizations registered in Armenia. According to the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” registration is required if the given religious organization or confession intends to engage in the activities, which are prescribed by the law. No less than 200 adherents are required for the registration. Religious organizations are registered with the Ministry of Justice after the reception of the expert’s opinion about compatibility of the given organization to the legal provisions, which is issued by the Department on Issues of National Minorities and Religion under the Government of the Republic of Armenia. According to Article 17 of the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” Armenian Apostolic Church enjoys the monopoly rights for open worship and dissemination of the belief, building of new churches, teaching at schools and educational facilities, having its preachers at hospitals, in the army and places of detention. Though there are religion lessons in some schools of Armenia, they are dedicated solely to the history of the Armenian Apostolic church and its teaching.
According to the law, after the registration all religious organizations enjoy equal rights. If they engage in commercial activity, then, according to the Law “On Value Added Tax” they become tax exempt.
Adopted in 2003 the law “On Alternative Service” came into effect on July 1, 2004 and is divided into two types: an “alternative military service” – 36 months, that is, unarmed service yet in uniform; and an “alternative labor service” – 42 months of service in a special blue colored uniform with words “Alternative Labor Service” written on the back. The duration of the regular military service is 24 month. In addition, Alternative servicemen are given military record books where they are described as soldiers, are checked up on each week by the military and need permission from the military to go on leave. Article 14 of the Alternative Service Law says that the military organises the
alternative service call-up, while Article 13 says that individuals are assigned to their place of work by the military. Article 18 subjects those doing alternative service to the army's Code of Rules. Article 21 treats those who desert from the army and those who abandon alternative service in exactly the same way.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Resolution 1361 (Article 22) and Resolution 1405 (Article 11.4) adopted in the year of 2004 draws attention of Armenian authorities on unacceptable terms of the alternative labor service, the duration of which is 42 months. On July 9 2004 a decree of the Government №940-N “On Places of Performing Alternative Service and Order of Wearing and Types of Uniforms of Alternative Serviceman” took effect, according to which 49 persons can be called to alternative labor service (establishments under the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Labor and Social Issues – boarding-schools, old people’s home, psychiatric establishments, isolation hospitals), and Alternative Military Service – 300 persons in military units of Syunik, Gegarqunik and Tavush regions (all of those regions are frontier ones).
Armenian authorities still deny or decline to consider the Law on Alternative Service as non-corresponding to international standards. Senior officials representing the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Foreign affairs repeatedly stated throughout the year of 2008 that the legislation regulating alternative service law had no contradiction with Armenia’s international human rights obligations, including the Council of Europe. The latter has repeatedly criticized the law saying it was substandard. This opinion was sounded by Thomas Hammarberg, Concil of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner. In particular he stated that the law did not provide a genuine civilian service as the service was still managed and supervised by the Ministry of Defense. In addition T. Hammarberg called on the Armenian authorities to free all its imprisoned conscientious objectors, those who cannot serve in the army or perform the alternative service under military control.
In contradiction of the statements of Thomas Hammarberg, as Karine Soudjan, Head of Human Rights Department of the Foreign Ministry stated in early December that the imprisonment of Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objectors “is not a human rights issue”.
Currently, there are about 80 Jehovah’s Witnesses conscientious objectors serving their prison terms for the refusal to join the alternative service under military control. Cases are underway against more than 15 other individual Jehovah’s Witnesses who face potential imprisonment as early as January 2009. Nearly all of these Jehovah's Witnesses are serving prison sentences of between one and three years for refusing military service on grounds of religious conscience. They had been sentenced under Article 327, Part 1 of the Criminal Code, which punishes evasion of the call-up to military or alternative service. The maximum sentence under this article was increased to three years' imprisonment in December 2005. One Jehovah's Witness is serving a suspended two-year sentence.
On 30 July 2008 and 13 October 2008 respectively Tigran Melikyan and Grishya Ohanjanyan were arrested and taken to Nubarashen remand prison due to their refusals to join the Alternative Service. As of now, their cases are pending trial.
As a sign of progress, since summer 2008 the practice of denying military cards to those who had served terms of imprisonment for refusing military and alternative service ended. Before that the young men who served their prison terms could not register their place of residence, and without a registered place of residence they couldn't get an identity card or passport. As a result, they couldn't get a job in the government, couldn't leave the country and couldn't even get married.
However, the public sentiment towards Jehovah’s Witnesses religious groups is still highly negative, let alone the attitude of the Armenian Apostolic church and its servants.
On 29 September 2008 Hayk Khachatryan and Naira Mnatsakanyan were passing near “Saint Sahak” Church in Kanaker district of Yerevan when they were suddenly attacked by senior priest of the church whose name was Sahak. With words “Have I told you not to pass nearby?” he started beating H. Khachatryan hitting him in the face with punches and kicks. This was accompanied with coarse words and swearing against both Hayk and Naira. All this was eye-witnessed by neighbourhood residents who, however, preferred not to intervene and stop the attack. Right after the incident Hayk and Naira applied to the Police Station of Kanaker-Zeytun districts of Yerevan. As to end of the year no police investigation into the allegations has ever started as it preferred to hush the case instead.
In general as regards cases of attacks and threats against representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious association, police displays quite a lenient attitude towards the offenders and is trying not to launch a criminal action let alone initiate a probe.
On 7 September 2008 Zohrab Drampyan and Ruzanna Shirakyan walking in Yerevan when they were approached by some person who said his name was Saro. He started to talk to them about God and his teaching, but as they appeared in one of the back-streets, he suddenly attacked them with punches and kicks. All this was accompanied with swearing and insults directed both towards them and Jehovah’s Witnesses in general. Z. Drampyan and R. Shirakyan applied to police who took Saro to Police Station but later released as he gave a signature that he would not commit an offence in future. However, it is worth mentioning that not for once did the same person attacked representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses – threatening to stab them with knife and even hitting them with wooden stick. But each time the police prefer not to apply any sanction again the attacker which creates an atmosphere of impunity and instigates new offences among the others.
On 2 November 2008 Boris Melkumyan and Artyom Divanyan, representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses were in Tsovagyugh village of Gegharkunik region of Armenia when suddenly several cars blocked their way. Several people went out the car and approached. They threatened B. Melkumyan and A. Divanyan saying that if they appeared in their village again they would be severely beaten and their car burned. Then those persons got into the car of Boris and Artyom and turned upside down everything that was there and then they went away. It should be mentioned that the same persons had already threatened Jehovah’s Witnesses and even attempted to create a car accident while driving their cars on high speed and trying to block the car in which representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses were driving.
This time on the same day, 2 November 2008 B. Melkumyan and A. Divanyan applied to Regional Police Department but till now the police has not reacted in any way to the written statement.
It should be stated separately that not only persons directly belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses are harassed by either the public or the authority, but also their children and close relatives.
On 20 November 2008 the child-girl of Gohar Barsegyan and Ara Sargsyan, both Jehovah’s Witnesses was beaten by her classmates of the School after G. Margaryan in Yerevan and mocked them because of their parents’ religious convictions. The spouses had two children – a boy and a girl who attended the same school where they were constantly under pressure by both the classmates and the school administration As A. Sargsyan went to see the school principal, the latter told him he fully supported the actions of the classmates. Two days later a gang of young boys from the class of their daughter attacked their home damaging the flat and writing offensive inscriptions on the entrance door. A. Sargsyan had nothing to do but to apply to the Mashtots district police station seeking protection. But the police did nothing but merely invited the School principal and the boys who attacked the house and where later released as they denied everything. Fearing for the lives and integrity of his children, A. Sargsyan decided not to take his children to school.
On 13 July 2008 in Yerevan two members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely Gor Gevorgyan and Meline Hovhannisyan knocked the door of certain Ayk Elizbaryan and as the latter opened the door they presented themselves offering him to hear about the Bilbe, the Christ and their religious teaching. Ayk Elizbaryan told them in reply that he did want to hear about it and invited them to come in. As G. Gevorgyan and M. Hovhannisyan entered, he locked up the door and said “Now you came in to stay here forever”. He then started insulting them with coarse words and then attacked them starting beating them with punches and kicks. He also drew his knife and threatened with stabbing. This all continued for several hours till Gor and Meline did manage somehow to escape. As they applied to Arabkir District Police Department of Yerevan, the police arrested the offender and later brought charges under Articles 118 (beating), 133/3 (arbitrary deprivation of liberty with the use of a weapon), 136 (insulting) and 137 (threatening with grave injuries or death) of the Criminal Code of Armenia. However, later the investigators removed Article 133/3 from the list of charges which in fact provided penalty of up to 5 years in prison. They did not spell out the reasons for that. Currently the case is on early court proceedings stage.
On 17 June 2008 the Court of Common Jurisdiction of Shengavit District of Yerevan deprived Margarita Hovhannisyan of her maternity rights over her child in favor of her former spouse Arman Torosyan. The District Custody and Guardianship Agency when issuing its opinion on the child custody dispute to the court as one of the main reasons for the deprivation of maternity rights mentioned the fact that Margarita Hovhannisyan was a follower of Jehovah's Witnesses. The judge took this circumstance into account and ruled in favors of the father. Subsequent appeals against the court decision both to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation respectively brought no results as they were dismissed.

6. WITNESS STATEMENTS OF MARCH 1 EVENTS

Robert Chakhoyan – 23 years old
Naira Chakhoyan - 25 years old
We have been in the Opera House Square since 20th of February. We had a tent, where we lived.
Robert- I didn’t have any weapon or any piece of wood. I was helping the doctors, as I work in the rescue party of Red Cross. I have the qualification for the first aid.
Naira- During all these 10 days, I was cleaning the square in the mornings, especially the parts, where there were only men and I have never seen any kind of weapon there.
Robert- I woke up at 6 in the morning, on 1st of March. I went up to the platform and I was told there that the police were gathering, so we should wake up the people and take them out of the tents. At 6:20 the police gathered and took their stand in the direction of H. Tumanyan’s monument. They had electroshocks, batons and shields. Three officers, one lieutenant colonel and one major stood in the front. There was another person as well, but I couldn’t see his military rank. They had submachine guns Kalashnikov. Levon Ter-Petrosyan went to the platform and told the people not to be confused. He told that they would talk to police and everything would be normal. He turned to the police saying that there were women and children and asked them to let them leave the square. That time the policemen were striking the batons at the shields and were kicking their legs in order to make an atmosphere of fear. There were approximately 1000 people in the troops and we were 3000-4000 person. Then the number of the soldiers increased to 5000. I was standing in the front. I was given a piece of wood, which was taken from the benches. The major was talking to one of the demonstrators and suddenly he hit that fellow by the electroshock and the latter fell. No one told anything about the search or that we should go out of the tents. They didn’t say anything at all. We only heard the order and they started. At first they were using the electroshocks, and then they were using the batons. The policemen got the people out of the crowd and beat them with feet. Suddenly a young man came up to me and said that the policemen used a tear gas against him. At first we were resisting weakly, but then, when we saw the arbitrariness of the police, we started to put up very serious resistance. We took the batons from the policemen, started picking up iron bars. When the policemen saw that the people were seriously resisting, they picked up the benches and threw them on the people. Our answer was that we started to throw wooden barrels (we set fire in them to get warm) on the policemen. The policemen took the burnt wood and hit the people with them, they were even burning the tents without knowing if there were some people or not. I saw Suren, I don’t remember his surname, he works at Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s election office, and his right cheek was burnt. We started to withdraw, as we didn’t have any means of protection. We could go out from Opera to the Northern Avenue. The whole operation lasted 20-25 minutes, maybe a little bit less. At about 7 o’clock there were only policemen and bodies on the ground there. In the first line of the police troops there were policemen from Yerevan and policemen from Karabagh stood behind them. Their uniforms were different. I didn’t know where Levon Ter-Petrosyan was. Then I saw buses No30 and No26 by which the policemen got there. I think that they gave us a way out from the Square to arrest us not in the Square, but in the streets creating the impression of hooliganism.
Narine – When the attack started, Armine, a woman of 7 children, Robert, and I were near Atlantic café. That time two policemen saw us, one of them who wore police uniform started cursing and beating us with his baton. They beat Armine too. I was watching at all these and I saw how the policemen threw a young man, who was wearing a white smock, on the ground and beat him with feet.
Robert – We took the taxi which belonged to Armine’s father-in-law and went to the direction of “Ayrarat” cinema, where Armine lived. Narine should go to Kayaran; one of her friends lived there. The crowd was running in different directions. The policemen were chasing the people with buses, and cars. A Chevrolet was chasing the people on Northern Avenue, there were policemen with batons in the car. When we reached the House of media, we saw a lot of soldiers and the same yellow buses, which were full of soldiers. When the people saw them, they started to dispense and the policemen began to arrest the people in the streets. At that moment somebody told that the office of “Erkrapah” was closed and the people got in a very stupid situation. That time the massacre again started. The crowd separated into small groups and ran into the yards of the block of flats. We knocked at the doors of flats to get into. Two doors opened and nearly 15 persons went in. We went to the roof. When the voices of policemen were weaken, we went downstairs. It was at about 8:15. We saw two injured persons near the house, the leg and hand of one of these men were broken and the other had two serious wounds on his head and on his face. I cried asking the inhabitants for some help. A BMW was passing by and the people inside it asked what had happened. We asked them to take the man whose leg was broken to hospital. A woman brought some cotton, bandage, iodine and two bottles of water. There was a man among us whose head was wounded. I provided him with first aid. Suddenly we were occupied by several police cars. We were only 8 and the policemen were 25. Three of us could flee and the policemen started beating us. We were pushed into a Chevrolet car and were taken to the Police Department of Kentron district. We were beaten there too. There were 20-25 persons in the room, Gagig Shamshyan, a journalist was also among us. He was quarreling with the policemen because of his camera, which was taken from him. Every one of us was taken to a separate room and was brutally beaten. After 15 minutes they brought 5 persons who were minors and they were also dragging a man over the floor as he was shocked. After some time the ambulance took that minor and other three persons. There were numerous wounds on their bodies. At 10:30 three persons and I were taken to the Police Department of Shengavit district. They didn’t beat us there but they were explaining to us that we shouldn’t struggle for Levon. I stayed at that room till 16:30 o’clock. We were talking to a policeman, whose surname was Grigoryan. He told us that the troops were from Karabagh and there was an order to disperse the demonstrators, but the policemen of Shengavit district Police Department refused to participate in this. At 18:30 three persons were taken to Khanjyan Street. They closed my eyes but I realized that we were near the police department of Yerevan. They beat us for 30 minutes and after that they gave me some papers to sign, but I refused to sign them and I was again taken to the Police Department of Shengavit district. Ten people and I remained there till 4 March at 15:00. During all this time I wanted to see an advocate and they didn’t let me exercise my rights. I didn’t sign any paper.

Narine – On 2 March I was waiting for Robert at my friends place. But I decided to wait for him at the monument of Sasuntsi Davit. There were a lot of police cars there. One of the policemen saw me and told the policemen that I had been there in the Square. I was taken to the Police Department of Kentron district. I saw a lot of people there. A policeman from Special Police Troops hit me with his feet and ordered me not to lean against the wall. I was taken to a room. There were 16-20 persons there. I remained there from 14:00 to 24:00. They didn’t let me go to the lavatory. They brutally beat two peoples there. One of them was 20 years old, his name was Hambik. They beat him as he was chewing a gun. The other man was also brutally beaten, he was a waiter in French Cuisine, and he had the leaflets “We will win” in his pocket. I wasn’t questioned at that time. Before they set me free, I left there my address, phone number, my name and surname.

Armen Hakobyan – Head of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s Campaign Headquarters of Charbakh Community of Yerevan (previously worked at Special Subdivision of Police Internal Army, Commander of “Aram Manukyan” military squad during the Nagorno Karabakh conflict)
On the 1st of March at dawn, during the police storm Armen was at home. He received news 2 hours after the storm about people gathering in front of the Embassy of France. At around 9 AM he already got to the Embassy, more specifically-the area around the statue of Myasnikyan.
At around 11 AM he witnessed a short scuffle between the demonstrators and the Police Internal Army. Due to his previous job (the Police Internal Army) he recognized some of the elderly officers (names of which is not mentioned because of their own security), had a friendly chat with them, explained to them that the demonstrators had nothing against them and that nothing bad was going to happen to them.
In the afternoon, at around 1-2 PM, Armen noticed masked men with rifles in a few Police vehicles. These cars disappeared a bit later and afterwards a black shielded bus-like vehicle came into notice. According to the eyewitness, judging by the stretch of the back of the car, there could be 30 to 40 fully armed people on the “bus”.
Along with that, Armen, while standing on the sidewalk by the Embassy, witnessed 7-8 minibuses full of policemen (judging by their outfits, they were from outside of Yerevan) arrive at the neighboring area by the Myasnikyan statue, although in a while they went in the direction of the Circus in the same minibuses.
5 minutes after that, a police jeep at top speed “flew” from around the Circus, intentionally running over demonstrators, and had to stop by the Sundukyan theatre, right on the sidewalk, since the road had been blockaded with trolley-buses by the people. People attacked the jeep and the driver fled in the direction of Circus. Armen and his friends called out to people no to give in to provocated violence. It turned out that two people were run over by the jeep, so the ambulance arrived in a while. According to Armen, a neatly dressed young man came out of the park behind the Sundukyan theatre, threw a piece of cloth rinsed in some flammable substance into the car and quickly left. The car burst into flames and people had to be shifted to the other side of the trolleys aka the barricades, after which the firemen arrived. Later on Armen noticed that the forces of the Police Internal Army had gone away from the front of the Myasnikyan statue.
In the afternoon a few people started to call upon for getting properly equipped for self-defense. Those were mainly common people: they were neither the leaders, nor the provocateurs. So, the people went to the construction camp nearby and started to “arm” themselves with construction materials- namely, metal poles, bricks and slim wooden bars. The leaders were at the time calling the people upon not damaging anything.
In the direction of Proshyan Street, there were forces both of the National Army and of the Police Internal Army. On Leo Street there were cartridges of Winchester rifles. The main shooters were standing near Maf’s restaurant, but there were some forces of National Army on Leo Street, 10 meters away from “SVIN” store. The shootings were both in the air, and in the horizontal direction. Armen and his friends were at the intersection of shootings- near the “SVIN” store and Armen had lost his self-control. There were about 100 people scattered around in that area. Tear gas was being fired, and the residents of the neighboring apartments were slinging bottles of water to the few demonstrators for eyewash.
Afterwards Armen went back to the “Closed Market” area with his friends. At around 8-9 PM forces of National Army was brought into that area in trucks. The army was equipped with such weapons as SVD (sniper rifle) and RPK (machine-gun), which are only used on the country border. The trucks stopped at the strip between Khorenatsi Street and “Closed Market”. Following the call of two provocateurs, people gathered at the bus-stop attacked one of the trucks. One of the provocateurs opened the tank in order to set the truck on fire. The officer on the truck called one of the other trucks to ask for help. According to Armen, following his friends’ and his call, the crowd calmed down, moved away from the truck, and the two provocateurs disappeared in the meantime. One portion of the army walked in the direction of the church, and the rest- left in their trucks. People from the area of Myasnikyan statue and “ARAY” shop on Mashtots avenue started to move towards the army. Two men among those coming from “ARAY” called out to break the shop windows of “Yerevan City” Supermarket. These two didn’t have anything uncommon with crowd and in Armen’s words “it was impossible to see their faces. After throwing a couple of stones at the supermarket, these two sat in a car that was videotaping the occurring and left. In the meantime, when Armen was asking the crowd to calm down, someone threw a bottle of yogurt at him. According to him, the people had become unmanageable; some were getting drunk on purpose. Armen was getting orders from the rally leaders to calm down the unmanageable mob. Not having succeeded, he returned to the statue with his friends, and then he left the area at 4 AM in the morning.
Armen has witnessed cases of extreme violence towards three people.
1. the woman that was run over by the jeep by the Sundukyan theatre
2. a nearly motionless dead body on a car nearby the “SVIN” store
3. massive loss of blood which had originated a “blood lake” around the “Closed Market” and the traces of which were headed towards the arc of the nearby building.

Armen also made his own remarks upon the video on March 1 incidents disseminated by the Police. According to him, F-1 grenade allegedly discovered around the Opera building under a tree, has a destruction range of 200 meters, and in the densely populated city center its usage is first of all dangerous for the one that uses it. Consequently, as per him, presenting the grenade as if it belongs to the peaceful demonstrators is sheer nonsense.
According to him the morning attack was carried out at first by Special Unit, then by the “Typhoon” Unit, led by Hamlet Mkrtchyan, the officers and subofficers of which were attired in uniforms of the Special Unit.

Gagik Shamshyan, a photo journalist with “Aravot” and “Chorord Ishkhanutyun” newspapers.
The editor told me to make photo coverage of the first day of spring and how the demonstrators were welcoming it on the Square of Liberty. I wanted to take photos when people were just getting up, so I decided to stay there for a night. Suddenly the chaos started. I saw that Swan’s Lake was occupied by cars and started taking photos. The cars belonged to Special Task Police Force (hereinafter STPF), I have taken the pictures of them. I was taking pictures, when I heard loud voices. Then I came to Opera House and saw that STPF was there. Some of them wore masks. They didn’t wear police uniforms; they wore black uniforms of STPF. There weren’t any policemen there. I have taken 3 shots. I saw how there were breaking the tents. They were beating the people with batons. They were cursing the people. I went to Tumanyan’s monument and took 2 shots. The STPF saw me and I went to Swan’s Lake, that part had already been occupied by soldiers (18-20 years old), they had batons. The husband of Shushan Petrosyan was there too, he was without a mask. Her husband and nearly 10 persons of STPF attacked me. I know them by appearance, I have their photos. They cursed me demanding that I hold on. I turned and wanted to run away, but didn’t succeed. I took out a certificate of journalist from my pocket. They approached cursing me. I told them that I was a journalist and that they couldn’t intervene with my job. The husband of Shushan Petrosyan took away my camera, and the others attacked me, threw me on the ground and started beating me. I was lying on the ground for about 20 minutes, and then they put handcuffs on my hands. After they subjected me to personal search, took my cell phone and other objects that I had with me and put them in the package. Galstyan Peto, the Deputy Chief Police of the Nork-Marash Distric of Yerevan said: “Let me put his eyes out, later we will say that it were demonstrators who put his eyes out”. I was afraid that he would really do that, but Karen Babakekhyan saw that the Deputy Chief of 6th Department of RA Police and told them not to touch me, and went away. But after he left, the STPF, together with Galstyan Edo, threw me on the ground.
They were shouting: “Guys, we caught that Shamshyan, come here, we are fed up with him”. Everyone was beating me. That time the “massacre” was already over. The police put handcuffs on everyone who was getting out of the Opera Square and took them away. I have their pictures. I must only make clear his name and title. But I think he was a lieutenant colonel. He told them to beat me in a way that would leave no traces. They were beating me on my shoulders and on my body. They took everything from me, except my hand watch. My watch was broken during the beating. I was lying on the ground for about 20-22 minutes and they were beating me with batons, some policemen were shouting to kick me in a way not to leave any traces. Some person whose face I don’t remember put his foot on me so that I couldn’t even move. During the beating they saw that I wore medical belt protecting my kidneys, but this didn’t stop them. The ring tones of my cell phones were making them very nervous, as the ring tones were “Struggle, Struggle Till the End” and “Symphony No. 9”. They beat and cursed me saying the following: “Come here, we want to see against whom you are struggling” In 20 minutes they threw me into the police car separated in 2 parts with a wire. They threw me into one part and threw three other men into the other. We left Opera Square at 8:04. Hovhannes Shoghikyan and Ruzan Khachatryan came to Opera with the policemen. They are the journalists of Radio “Liberty”. I was taken to the Yerevan Police Department, I waited for 15-20 minutes there, then I was told that Mirijanyan, the Chief Deputy of the Department ordered them to take me to Kentron District Police station. I was taken there with three other persons, who looked beaten; they were about 40-50 years old. I was taken to Kentron District Police station, and then they put off my handcuffs. There were a lot of people in the police station, some man felt himself bad and they called the ambulance. Aram Manukyan, Hrant Bagratyan, Vahagn Hajotsyan and Mushegh Saghatelyan were all there. The latter had a serious injury on his head. I saw there a lot of people who were seriously beaten. The role of the policeman wasn’t important there. The STPF beat the people and the policemen couldn’t even say a word. Some of them wore red and black berets. I should have signed a paper confirming that they havd taken my cell phone and other things. But I didn’t sign as my camera wasn’t there. Before they beat me, I managed to take out the camera chip and gave it to Aram Manukan. All shots are saved on the chip. But I don’t know what he did with that chip. We will try to find it. Then I was taken to the room of district police inspector. They gave me a paper and ordered sign it. However, I refused to sign it and told them that I would sign the paper written by me only. I told them that they had intervened with my job, that they tried to take my camera and that I was subjected to violence. The inspectors didn’t introduce themselves. I didn’t even know who were questioning me. After two hours the chief of Kanaker District Investigation Department appeared, me and another person were put into a car taken to Kanaker District Police Station without even explaining why they were taking me there. I was taken to the room of criminal investigator. The investigator started writing that I was arrested in the area of Opera for disobeying, defying and slandering the police.
After that he told me to sign the paper. I refused to sign it saying I would not sign it unless everything was written correctly. Then they told me that I should leave my fingerprints, but I answered that they could get my fingerprints only by force. I told them that I want to have an advocate, and only in his presence I would leave my fingerprints. They saw that I resisted and so they went out. They were talking outside. I got my cell phone from the packet and phoned Shogher, Nara, Anjela from “A1plus” and Karine Kalantaryan. Anjela told me the phone number of Armen Harutyunyan, Human Rights Defender of RA. I phoned A. Harutyunyan and told him where I was and what had happened to me. In 10 minutes the Ombudsman was already there. I heard that he was quarreling with the policemen and they were persuading him that Shamshyan wasn’t there. A. Harutyunyan insisted that he knew that Shamshyan was there, but he didn’t say that I had informed him about this. In 10 minutes I was taken to the room of chief of Criminal Department. A. Harutyunyan was there. The chief asked me if I had been beaten in the Central police station. I told them that they didn’t beat me there but they were mocking me and they were subjecting me to psychological shock. The policemen asked me the date of my birth; I told them, “I was born in 71”. They said, “Are you a mummy? You must answer “I was born in 1971”. That time the Chief said to me, “Now we will send you to a place and see if how you struggle there”. A. Harutyunyan told them that they had no right to act like that as I was a journalist and I was doing my job. The chief answered that there was an order and Mirzoyan Andranik wanted to listen to me. A. Harutyunyan told me to go but not to sign any documents. He told me that I had a right to have an advocate and that I didn’t have to speak without my advocate. That time Karine Kalantaryan came there, but they lied saying that Gagik wasn’t there. Some hours later Seda Safaryan came and told them that she was my attorney and she started negotiating with them. But she was told that there was an order that I should be taken to Mirzoyan. Seda Safaryan went downstairs as a lot of people were gathered there for me. That time I felt giddiness and lost my consciousness. They splashed water on me and informed Seda Safaryan about this. She came and they called the ambulance. They rendered me first aid and injected some medicine, but I only got worse. The doctor said that I should be taken to hospital. The policemen didn’t let them do that. They took me into their car as they wanted to take me to hospital in Massive district of Yerevan. But I refused, asking to take me to Erebuni hospital. There the doctors again injected me and the policemen took me back to the police station. That was at about 23:00. I felt very bad in the car. We entered the police station and they took me to the same room again. Meanwhile S. Safaryan was negotiating with the policemen. They were questioning me in Armen Galstyan’s room. After that they would take me to the room of STPF. Two persons came from the human rights defender’s office and took me home. So I went home. They gave me back what they had confiscated from me besides the flash-disks. As those men left, I phoned S. Safaryan and told her that I was home. She sent to me another advocate whose name was Lusine. She left as she saw that I was really home. Afterwards they neither called me nor summoned. I had to visit the Criminal Police Chief to take my flash-disks, but they told me that they did not have them. I told them that I would complain if they didn’t give back my flash-disks. They called me in 3 days saying that they had have found them under the table. I was glad that they had found them, but all my flash-disks were corrupted.
Till present they have not called me or summoned me to appear.

Grizelda Ghazaryan – 51 years old
Gayane Ghazaryan (Grizelda’s daughter) – 24 years old
Grizelda
On the 1st of March, at 8 o’clock AM they phoned and told us that the sit-in strike had been dispersed. At 10 o’clock AM my daughter and I reached the Opera House, and then at 12 o’clock we went to Myasnikyan’s monument, where the people were already gathered. We stayed there with my daughter and her friends till 21:30.
Gayane
At 3 o’clock PM we saw how “Vilis”-type police car drove into the crowd. As we were standing far, we weren’t able to see if it had brought to an accident, but later we saw that car was burning. A group of policemen, with helmets and batons, ran from the direction of the museum near the City Hall of Yerevan. They stood before the crowd for about 15 minutes, and then started dispersing the demonstrators, but the crowd pushed them back. They withdrew and entered the City Hall.
Then, Nikol Pashinyan and Stepan Demirchyan showed up, set the microphones and called on the people not to enter into a conflict with the police. Nikol Pashinyan was passing along the people calling them to stay calm.
At about 5 o’clock Nikol announced that an attack from police and soldiers was quite probable so it was necessary to build barricades. The people used the buses and police cars (“Niva” type) as barricades.
People standing near Myasnikyan’s monument didn’t have any kind of weapon. Some people had wooden “batons” taken from the broken benches. Till 8 o’clock PM we stayed there listening to the “Azatutyun” Radio and we were going to pass the night there.
Grizelda
At about 9 o’clock my daughter, her friends, Shirkhanyan’s wife and me decided to go to Vahan Shirkhanyan’s place (address: Paronyan 18). Passing near the Fish shop, we saw a big group of soldiers at the pedestrian subway. The soldiers were hitting theirs batons on the iron shields in order to create an atmosphere of fear. A group of soldiers took up their position and they were ordered to go into the direction of demonstrators. At that moment we started to cry at soldiers and tried to keep them back, but they answered the following: “We are protecting the state”. We were shouting: “the state is us” but a soldier approached me, hit and swore me, and then ordered me to leave. We were with Shirkhanyan’s wife and the officer had apparently recognized her, that’s why he didn’t do anything.
A group of soldiers was moving from Paronyan Street to the crossroad with Leo Street hitting their batons on the shields. The traffic was still active. We had not yet reached Leo Street when we heard the sound of shootings coming from Myasnikyan monument. We started to shout and at that moment policemen with batons attacked us. My daughter’s friends ran away and walked into the entrance of a house. My daughter and I also tried to enter, but the policemen hit me on my head, shoulder, hands and spine with a very heavy and dull subject. Maybe it was a baton.
Gayane
I tried to run after my mother, but they pulled my jacket. I fell on the ground and they started to hit me on my belly, legs and hands with theirs batons and kicked me. I could hardly take off my glasses and to cover my face with hands. It lasted for several minutes. Later when I came to my senses, I tried to raise and sit. At that moment an officer came up to me, pulled my jacket and dragged me to the nearest house entrance. My mother was crying and her head was bleeding. The officer told my mother that he saved my life, adding that my mother could not realize it at that moment. We noticed that nearly 100 policemen and soldiers were running in our direction. We went upstairs by knocking at the doors. Some family gave us a shelter, tried to give us first aid and called an ambulance. However, the doctors told us that they couldn’t reach that part of the city, as the soldiers didn’t let them into the area as they were shooting. When I approached the window, I saw the policemen entering the yard. They were cursing as they were looking for us.
At 1 AM my brother Vazgen, who was among the demonstrators, phoned us and said that it was all over. At about 2 o’clock AM an ambulance arrived and took us to the hospital.

Seda Harutyunyan
I am the sister of Samvel Harutyunyan, who is in “Nubarashen” remand prison at this moment. He was arrested on the 1 March at 6 o’clock in the morning. He participated at peaceful demonstrations and was there during all those days. On the 2 March at 4:45 in the morning an unknown person called me and said that Samvel is in Temporary Detention Cell (TDC) of the police. I saw my brother only on the 4 March in the Kentron District Court of Yerevan, where a close-door hearing took place. I learned about the court hearing from L. Melqonyan, the investigator I was in touch with. He phoned me and said that he needed Samvel’s passport. I gave him the passport on 3 March. The investigator gave me Samvel’s personal belongings: the cell phone, some money, visit-cards and his scarf. There weren’t any blood stains on the scarf, but my brother told me that his body had many bruises as he had been severely beaten. At first they put his hands into handcuffs and started beating him up right in the Liberty Square. Then they forced him into a police car where several policemen beat him brutally. Afterwards he was taken to the police department of Kentron district. There they started beating him again, after which he was taken to the police department of Shengavit district. He wasn’t beaten there. I learned about the beatings as my brother confessed that his body had many bruises.
Instead of 72 hours time-limit he was kept there for 84 hours. On the 4 March at about 10 o’clock in the morning the trial took place, after which he was taken to TDC and he was transferred to “Nubarashen” CEI. In the remand prison a few investigative actions were conducted. On 1 March he refused a lawyer as he had doubts that the advocate was working for the police, while he did not know that he could request a public defender. Subsequently, in the evening of 4 March they invited an advocate who, according to my brother, was also working for the police. It was on 12 March only that after my numerous demands and my brother’s requests, the investigator appeared at the remand prison so we were able to refuse the advocate, Anna Vardanyan, from the Chamber of Advocates. As we couldn’t pay her for her work, she helped us only to prepare a motion to the Court of Cassation requesting to change the preventing measure to be submitted within 5 days.
The next time I saw my brother was March 18. Now he is represented by a public defender. They did not abuse him in Nubarashen remand center. He had bruises on his face – under his eyes and nose. He was complaining of a spine-ache and a headache. There were 8 persons in the cell, and then two more persons were brought to the cells, who were criminals. His cell is no. 70. They do not abuse him now. Melqonyan, the investigator, had applied to the court with a motion to conduct a home search which was granted, so he sent a group of investigators to my brother’s place. The court gave the order for a search and they searched my brother’s apartment. On the 18th of March they came to search my flat. The sanction was granted by the Kentron District Court. As far as I am the one, who complains, they subject me to psychological stress. I complained to the human rights defender of RA and the prosecutor’s office requesting to change the preventive measure. I filed a complaint on behalf of my mother seeking to bring to liability the law enforcement officials, who abused and tortured my brother.
During the search they were looking for weapons and ammunition. They were digging in my underwear then took out the jewelry checking out every piece of it. The prosecutor’s office rejected my complaint and I prepared another complaint, and I will also send them my brother’s picture, where he is pictured beaten. He himself shot that picture. I applied to the Red Cross, to the OSCE and also to all mass media outlets.
The investigator subjected my brother and me to psychological stress. He says that I am very active and that I am always complaining against him to the special investigator Melqumyan. During the search of my brother’s flat the investigator phoned me and asked to come to my brother’s place as he wanted to talk to me. I phoned the advocate from whom I learned that they wanted to search the flat. He told me to phone them and to request a call-up paper. I phoned the investigator and he told me that it was very difficult to deal with me. He told me that they would come to search the apartment and if I wasn’t there, they would bring me to criminal liability. They didn’t give me a copy of the protocol, but they recorded that they hadn’t found anything except 2 CDs about Levon Ter-Petrosyan.

Vahram Mkhtaryan
My son took part at demonstrations and he even stayed there overnight occasionally. I always advised him to keep away from those demonstrations as he was sick. He was in Liberty Square in the night of March 1. On March 3 at 5 o’clock the policeman of Kanaker-Zeytun Police Department phoned me and said that my son was there and that I should go and take my son from there till 12 in the evening. But the roads were closed because of state of emergency; I decided to go there in the morning. When I went there in the morning, I was told that my son had been taken to Temporary Remand Prison of Erebuni Police Department. The preventative punishment was explained on March 5 at 19:00 in the evening.
For the first time I saw my son on March 19 in “Nubarashen” CEI. He told me that on March 1 the people had slept, when hundreds of policemen had attacked them. Then they took him to Police Department of Kanaker-Zeytun.
I went there, but I was told that that investigator Veqilyan and the investigative group of prosecution were engaged in the case of my son. My niece was with him and they questioned her, as my son was temporary living in her place. I was called to Police Department, but no one told me to go to Prosecutor’s Office. It was my intention to go there. They called my niece, but they didn’t display any summons. They had phoned her and I took there myself.
My son told me that he had been beaten both in the police department and in the prosecutor’s office. When he was in the room of prosecutor’s office, he was beaten by a baton and he lost his consciousness. In the Police Department of Zeytun he was beaten by a white-haired lieutenant colonel. My son told me that he had been beaten by batons in the Police Department and he had been beaten by wooden batons in the prosecutor’s office. They beat him to seize evidence. The investigative actions were going on. My son refused to sign any paper as it hadn’t been written by him. He even denied legal representation.

Baghdasaryan Robert
On March 1, 2008 I went to ARDSHININVESTBANK to get my order as I should move to Arabkir branch of the bank. At about 2 or 3 o’clock I saw the crowd and I saw how the police were dispersing the rally from the French Embassy to Myasnikyan’s Monument. I saw pieces of wood and stone in the hands of people, but I did not see any kind of arms. Then I decided to go to my relative’s house, which was on the crossroad of the Paronyan and Leo streets. I stayed there till 22.00 pm. I could hear shootings there. I went downstairs in order to go home. And at that moment I received bullet wound. I saw the people who shot at me. They wore black uniforms and stood near the Paronyan-Leo crossroad. After I was wounded I could hardly get to the ambulance car. Four men of the crowd, whom I don’t know, helped me and took me to the ambulance car. I was given first aid there, and then I was taken to Erebuni medical centre. Let me note that there was another man in the car, who was also wounded. I was operated on in the hospital and when the policemen started asking me questions in the evening, I decided to leave the hospital in the morning. I did not mention my name and surname in the hospital, so the policemen could find me only on the 23rd of May. Investigators Hovakimyan Gor and Piliposyan or Piloyan Serj /I don’t remember the latter’s name/ visited me. They told me to write in my testimony that I saw how a man from the people shot at me. I refused to write the word “people” and they told me to write the word “crowd” instead of the word “people”. When I went to the Prosecution office, I was told to write in my testimony that I didn’t see who had shot at me.
After all I was fired from my job place. The management did not mention any serious reasons. I wrote a letter concerning my job to Mr. Nikolyan, the chairman of the Temporary Commission on the Investigation of the Events of March the 1st, but I did not get any response.
When my health state was already stable, I decided to give my real testimony. I think that they will exert pressure on me now, as I want to write that I clearly saw who had shot at me. They did not exert any physical pressure on me as I wrote everything they wanted me to write in my testimony.

Yulia Shandibina

On 1 March 3 persons from Police Criminal Department came to my house and showed me certificates of red color. One of them entered and the other 2 waited in the street. One of them was our district officer. I was asked where my husband was and if he was a man, he should appear. They said that they should search the house. We told them that there was no problem and they could do this. They didn’t show us any paper concerning the search. They entered, looked for my husband in the rooms, they looked under the bed, and then they asked me questions about my husband again. I answered that he was in the Square and they answered that they broke down everything in the Square. On 3 March at 9:30 o’clock the criminal inspector of our district came to my place. They let my mother-in-law, my 4 years old child and me put on our clothes and took us to police department without explaining any reason. They were 2 with civil uniforms. There they told me that my mother-in-law and my child can go, but I had to stay. Then they told me that they should keep me here until my husband came there. I was in the room of Mkrtchyan, the Chief of Criminal Department. He was very annoyed as his father got missile wound during those events. His father was the chef of the troops “Taifoon”. They took some phone numbers from my mother-in-law and they told her that she could go. But she refused to leave the department without me. They were trying to get the information from me using every means; they wanted to know where my husband was. They told my mother-in-law that she could go, but her grandchild would stay there until his father came to take him. Then I was taken to the Chief Gabrielyan. Gabrielyan was hurting me and all those people who were there in the Square. He cursed my parents saying if they knew that they have a bitch daughter. I didn’t keep silent and asked them not to hurt either my parents or me.
My testimony was written by me. They forced me to give false testimony against Armen, saying that Armen told me that my husband was near the Embassy. I refused to do that and they told me that maybe I had a lover and I was afraid to name him. Then they asked me about Levon Ter-Petrosyan and about his speeches and promises that he gave at his rallies. Then they set me free keeping there for an hour.
On 4 March at 9 o’clock I had to come to the department to sign some papers. I was kept there for an hour and a half, then they called me in. I left my phone number and went home. Then they called me again. They didn’t say why I was taken to the department; they didn’t explain to me my rights. They only explained that when my husband learnt that I was there, he would come and would surrender.
On 6 March at 7 o’clock my mother-in-law and me were taken to the department and were again questioned about my husband.
APPENDIX 1
HELSINKI ASSOCIATION

/apt.33, 8 Nansen St, 1st blind alley, Yerevan 0056, Republic of Armenia/
Tel.: +374 10 589991, +374 10 586093 E-mail: mike@arminco.com

LIST OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS WHO ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS OR WHO ARE PERSECUTED FOR POLITICAL REASONS RELATED TO THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Name Occupation Arrest date Accusation Place of detention
Zhora Sapeyan

Head of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) Party Unit in Talin 29 Januray 2008 RA Criminal Code 258/3
Convicted to 2.5 years "Nubarashen" criminal-executive institution (CEI)
Hovik Arsenyan
Mkrtich Sapeyan

Chief of Aragatsotn region “Yerkrapah” office 29 Januray 2008 RA CC 258/2
Convicted to 2 years "Nubarashen" (CEI)
Hovik Arsenyan
Haik Gevorgyan
Member of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) Party 29 January 2008 RA CC 258/3
Convicted to 1.5 year "Nubarashen" CEI
Hovik Arsenyan
Gagik Hovhannisyan
Proxy 08 February 2008 RA CC 309/2
Convicted to 2 years ''Yerevan-Kentron'' CEI
Hovik Arsenyan
Marzpetuni Ayvazyan
Member of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) Party 19 February 2008 RA CC 188/3
Convicted to 2 years "Nubarashen" CEI

Harutyun Urutyan
ANM member, Head of Maralik Campaign Headquarters 19 February 2008 RA CC 149/2
Convicted to 7 years "Nubarashen" CEI
Gagik Jhangiryan
Pending Trial Former Deputy General Prosecuter of RA, former Military Prosecutor 23 February 2008 RA CC 300/1, 316/1 "Yerevan-Kentron" CEI

Smbat Ayvazyan
Member of Political Council of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) Party, Former Minister of the State Income 24 February 2008, 9:45 RA CC 316/1
Convicted to 2 years "Vardashen" CEI

Hovik Arsenyan
Petros Makeyan
Chiefman of "" “Jokhvardakan hayrenik” (Democratic Motherland) Party 25 February 2008, 14:00 RA CC 149/2
Convicted to 3 years "Nubarashen" CEI

Varduhi Elbakyan
Ashot Zaqaryan
Head of the Guymri Branch Yerkrapah, Former Chief of Policeof Gyumri 25 February 2008 RA CC 149/2
Convicted to 2,5 years “Vardashen” CEI

Grisha Manikyan
Husik Baghdasaryan
Member of ''Hanrapetutyun'' (Republic) Party 26 February 2008 RA CC 235/1
Convicted to 3 years ''Nubarashen'' CEI

Hovhannes Harutyunyan

Member of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) Party, “Yerkrapa” –Arabkir chef 26 February 2008 RA CC 235/1
Convicted to 1,5 year "Yerevan-Kentron" CEI
Vardan Zurnachyan

Yura Mamyan
Member of ANM, Head of Noyemberyan Compaign Headquarters 26 February 2008 RA CC 235 /1
Convicted to 3 years "Yerevan-Kentron" CEI
Seda Safaryan
Davit Matevosyan
Member of Levon Ter-Petrosyan Central Campaign Office, former Meghri Police Chief, Proxy 01 March 2008 RA CC 225 prim, 316/2
Convicted to 3 years “Vardashen” CEI
Artavazd Parsadanyan
Ashot Manukyan
Member of ANM territorial council Chief of Lori Marz, Chief of compaign office 01 March 2008 RA CC 316/2
Convicted to 6 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Inesa Petrosyan
Mushegh Saghatelyan
Head of the Ani Campaign Headquarters, member of “Vogu Pordzutyun” NGO, 01 March 2008 RA CC 225/2, 316/1,2
Convicted to 5 years “Vardashen” CEI
Seda Safaryan
Vardges Gaspari
Proxy 02 March 2008 RA CC 316/1
Convicted to 1 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Varduhie Elbakyan
Arman Shahinyan
Proxy 02 March 2008 RA CC 316/1
Convicted to 1,5 years “Nubarashen”CEI
Hakob Hakobyan
Pending Trial Deputy of National Assembly, Chief of “Vogu pordzutyun” NGO 03 March 2008 RA CC 235/1, 300/1
“Yerevan-Kentron” CEI
Melanya Arustamyan
Sos Gevorgyan
Activist 03 March 2008 RA CC 235/1
Convicted to 2 years
“Nubarashen” CEI
Gegham Harutyunyan
Member of the Republic (Hanrapetutyun) Party 03 March 2008 RA CC 225/3, 300/1 Convicted to 1.5 year “Yerevan-Kentron” CEI
Nikol Grigoryan

Myasnik Malkhasyan
Pending Trial Deputy Chief of Yerkrapah (Voluntary Union of War Veterans)
Deputy of National Assambly 03 March 2008 RA CC 225/3, 316/2 “Yerevan-Kentron” CEI
Melanya Arustamyan
Kristophor Elazyan
Former policeman 03 March 2008
RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 4 years “Vardashen” CEI
Vardan Zurnachyan

Aslan Avetisyan
Member of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) , Proxy 06 March 2008 RA CC 225/4
Convicted to 0,5 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Grigor Voskerchyan
Pending Trial ANM Board member, Head of Abovyan Campaign Headquarters 08 March 2008 RA CC 225/1, 300/1 “Yerevan-Kentron” CEI
Gevorgyan Hrant
Aram Bareghamyan
Head of Hrazdan Campaign Headquarters 09 March 2008 RA CC 225 prim, 316/2
Convicted to 6 years “Nubarashen” CEI

Alexandr Arzoumanyan
Pending Trial Head of Central Campagn Headquarters, former Foreign Minister 10 March 2008 RA CC 225/3, 300/1 “Yerevan-Kentron” CEI
Suren Sirunyan
Pending Trial Member of ANM 10 March 2008 RA CC 225/1, 300/1 “Vardashen” CEI
Sargis Mkrtchyan
Activist, Disabled, Diabetic 11 March 2008 RA CC 176/1
Convicted to 1 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Sasun Mikaelyan
Pending Trial Deputy of National Assembly 12 March 2008 RA CC 225/3, 300/1, 235/1
“Yerevan-Kentron” CEI

Vardan Ghavalbabunts
Member of Malatia-Sebastia Campaign Headquarter, Proxy 16 March 2008 RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 4 years “Vardashen” CEI,
Harutyun Baghdasaryan
Shant Harutyunyan
Pending Trial 11 April 2008 RA CC 225/3, 300/1 ''Nubarashen'' CEI
Harutyun Baghdasaryan
Samvel Karapetyan
Proxy 11 April 2008 RA CC 38, 150
Convicted to 3years
N/A
Simon Amirkhanyan
Proxy 11 April 2008 RA CC 38, 150
Convicted to 3 years
N/A
Artur Nazanyan
Activist 12 April 2008 RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 3 years ''Nubarashen'' CEI
Gabriel Gabrielyan
Activist 15 April 2008 RA CC 225/1,2
Convicted to 7 years ''Nubarashen'' CEI
David Aghayan
05 May 2008 RA CC 316/1
Convicted to 4 years ''Nubarashen'' CEI
Vardan Zurnachyan
Gevorg Manukyan
12 May 2008 RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 4 years ''Nubarashen'' CEI
Inessa Petrosyan
Armen Sirunyan Activist May 208 RA CC 34-309 “Yerevan-Kentron” CEI

Styopa Sargsyan
N/A RA CC 225/2, 176/1
Convicted to 2,5 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Mkrtich Abrahamyan
N/A RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 3,6 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Grigor Aghamalyan
N/A RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 1 year “Nubarashen” CEI
Aharon Antonyan
N/A RA CC 225/2, 183/2.2, 177/2.1
Convicted to 5 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Arayik Bagratyan
N/A RA CC 176/2.3
Convicted to 1 year “Nubarashen” CEI
Meliq Grigoryan
N/A RA CC 316/1
Convicted to 0,6 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Andranik Ghazaryan
N/A RA CC 176/1
Convicted to 1 year
“Nubarashen” CEI
Vahe Ghazaryan

N/A RA CC225/2
Convicted to 4,6 “Nubarashen” CEI
Arman Margaryan

N/A RA CC 225/2,
Convicted to 3 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Roman Mnatsakanyan
N/A RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 3.6 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Armen Sargsyan
N/A RA CC 225/1
Convicted to 3,5 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Stepan Sargsyan
N/A RA CC 225/2, 271/1
Convicted to 3 years “Vanadzor” CEI
Nver Stepanyan
N/A RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 3years “Nubarashen” CEI
Tatev Gasparyan
RA CC 235/1
Convicted to 2 years ‘’Yerevan-Kentron’’ CEI

Tigran Mkrtchyan
N/A RA CC 225/2
Convicted to 3 years
Ara Hovhannisyan
N/A RA CC 225/2, 238/2
Convicted to 9 years “Nubarashen” CEI
Vrej Nikolyan 14 May 2008 RA CC 38-316/2, 38-225/1 Convicted to 6.6 years ‘’Yerevan-Kentron’’ CEI

Felix Gevorgyan
Pending trial 26 June 2008 RA CC 34-170/2.1.2, 235/1, 238/1, 225/2 ‘’Yerevan-Kentron’’ CEI

Armen Khurshudyan
Pending trial 29 June 2008 RA CC 34-170/2.1.3.4, 235/1, 238/1 “Nubarashen” CEI
Harutyun Kharibyan
Pending trial 29 September 2008 RA CC 225/2 “Vardashen” CEI
Karen Hayrapetyan 19 January1008 RA CC 338/1
Convicted to 1 years ““Nubarashen” CEI

Tigran Melqonyan and Levon Khachatryan, former state security officers, are charged with disclosure of a state secret as provided by Article 306/1 of the RA C.C. for unveiling two persons as state agents who were installing spy-bugs at an oppositional demonstration held on 27 February 2008 in Liberty Square. Convicted to 2 years.

SILL GROUP – A company which belongs to Khachatur Sukiasyan, who, among other four National Assembly deputies, was deprived of his deputy immunity by National Assembly decision on 2 March. He is accused under Articles 225 and 300 of the CC of Armenia. Currently he is declared in search.
1. Gevorg Sapharyan - Chief of Pizza di Roma – a network of cafes-restaurants. Pending Trial.
Article 205/2 of CC of Armenia – Tax evasion
2. Anush Khavalyan – cashier of Pizza di Roma. Pending Trial. Article 205/2, 38-205 of CC of Armenia

PERSONS WHO GOT SUSPENDED SENTENCES

Seryoja Siradeghyan - RA CC Article 235/1, 2years
Rafik Asryan – RA CC Article 235/1, 1 year
Ruben Voskanyan – RA CC 225prim/1, 316/1, 2.6 years, 200.000 AMD Fine (with probation 1.6 years)
Davit Hambardzumyan – RA CC 316/1, 1.6 years (with probation 2years)
Artashes Matevosyan RA CC 225/2, 4 years (with probation 2years)
Hovhanes Mkhoyan RA CC 334/1 1.6 years (with probation 2 years)
Levik Khachatryan RACC 316/1, 1.6 years (with probation 2 years)
Soghomon Yeritsyan RA CC 316/1, 1 year (with probation 1.6 years)
Khachik Gasparyan RA CC 225prim/2, 316/2, 2 years (with probation 1.6 years)
Hovhanes Ghazaryan RA CC 225/2, 316/1, 1 year (with probation 2 years)
Masis Ayvazyan RACC 225/2, 316/1 1,6 years (with probation 2 years)
Davit Araqelyan RACC 225/2, 316/1 1,6 years (with probation 2 years)
Shota Saghatelyan RA CC 149/2.3,5, 2,6 years (with probation 2 years)
Isahak Malkhasyan RA CC 225/2 1 year (with probation 1 years)
Lendrush Tonoyan RA CC 235
Yasha Melqonyan RA CC 225prim/1, 316/1, 2 years (with probation 2 years)
Edik Khachtryan RA CC 235/2, 3 years, (with probation 2 years)
Hrayar Peninyan RA CC 225/2, 2 years, (with probation 2 years)
Hovhanes Mnatsakanyan RA CC 225/2, 176/2, 3.6 years, (with probation 3 years)
Grisha Simonyan RA CC 316/1, 271/1, 2 years, 50.000AMD Fine, (with probation 2 years)
Samvel Harutyunyan RA CC 316/1, 1 year, (with probation 2 years)
Albert Nersisyan RA CC 225/4, 1 year, (with probation 1.6 years)
Alexander Kitesov RA CC 225/2, 3 years, (with probation 2 years)
Armen Avagyan RA CC 361/1 1,6 with probation 2 years
Armenak Abrahamyan RA CC 225/1 5 yers with probation
Hovik Mkhtaryan RA CC 225/1 2 years with probation
Vahagn Hayocyan RA CC 316/1 2 years with probation
Agasi Mkrtchyan RA CC 225/2 2 years with probation
Lavrent Gasparyan RA CC 225/2, 176/1 3 years with probation

DETENTION ON REMAND HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED WITH A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING NOT TO LEAVE A PLACE

Razmik Tevoyan RA 225/2, 300/1
Petros Hakobyan RA CC 225/2prim, 316-2
Frunze Stepanyan RA CC 225/2
Levon Kizakyan RA CC 225/2
Vemir Mkhitaryan RA CC 225/2
Sedrak Grigoryan RA CC 225/2, 300/1
Vladimir Araqelyan RA CC 300/1
Aleksan Vardanyan RA CC 225/2
Suren Barseghyan RA CC 225/3, 300/1
Aram Karapetyan RA CC 333
Samvel Gevorgyan RA CC 149/2.5
Vardan Jhangiryan RA CC 316/2
Mkrtich Armenakyan RA CC 225/2
Suren Minasyan RA CC 177/2
Mikael Serobyan RA CC 177/2
Arshak Banuchyan RA CC 154/prim2, 225/1

Mikael Danielyan

Chairman of
Helsinki Association

APPENDIX 2

Conscientious Objectors

REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
As of 1 January 2009
Currently, there are 81 Jehovah’s Witnesses who are in prison for their conscientious refusal of military service on religious grounds. Of these, 81 have been tried and convicted and no one has been charged and is awaiting his trial. Moreover, 1 Jehovah’s Witnesses received suspended sentences. The names, dates of imprisonment, grounds (under criminal code), the duration of punishment and present locations are as follows:
Eighty one Jehovah’s Witnesses have been tried and convicted:

Hayk Avetisyan July 17, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Gor Sukiasyan August 22, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Mushegh Avetisyan August 30, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Jirayr Zakaryan September 2, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Nikol Yervandyan September 6, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Vahe Mejlumyan September 6, 2006 § 327 I, 36 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Argishti Eghiazaryan September 11, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni enal Institution
Artak Kocharyan September 12, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Nikolay Gasparyan September 25, 2006 § 327 I, 36 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Taron Lalayan September 25, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Hovhannes Khachatryan November 22, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Vahe Musaelyan November 28, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Gagik Qochinyan December 5, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Hrachya Khachatryan December 8, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Albert Balyan December 13, 2006 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Yerem Hovhannisyan January 10, 2007 § 327 I, 36 months Artik Penal Institution
Sayad Tovmasyan January 10, 2007 § 327 I, 36 months Artik Penal Institution
Karapet Barseghyan February 7, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Aram Yelchyan February 13, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Senik Harutyunyan February 15, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Armen Zurabyan February 27, 2007 § 327 I, 36 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Gevorg Hovsepyan March 3, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Sevada Grigoryan March 12, 2007 § 327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Bagrat Pirgulyan March 15, 2007 § 327 I, 26 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Karen Safaryan March 15, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Vigen Yeghiazaryan March 15, 2007 § 327 I, 27 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Hakob Babayan March 16, 2007 § 327 I, 27 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Vahan Babayan March 16, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Gnuni Barseghyan March 16, 2007 § 327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Kajik Harutyunyan March 18, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Gevorg Karapetyan April 5, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Armen Kirakosyan April 18, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Nshan Gevorgyan July 17, 2007 § 327 I, 36 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Armen Khachatryan July 17, 2007 § 327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
David Aroyan August 3, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Edgar Hakobyan August 7, 2007 §327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Andranik Aghekyan August 8, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Ashot Qaryan August 9, 2007 §327 I, 26 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Zora Melkonyan August 13, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Hayk Madatyan August 11, 2007 §327 I, 36 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Karen Smbatyan August 14, 2007 §327 I, 22 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Arman Ayvazyan August 14, 2007 §327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Henrik Ghazaryan August 23, 2007 §327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Levon Azizyan August 23, 2007 §327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Argam Vardanyan August 29, 2007 §327 I, 24 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Gor Kirakosyan September 21, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Mkrtich Smbatyan September 26, 2007 §327 I, 22 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Stepan Hovakimyan September 26, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Babken Shahinyan December 5, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Roman Hovhannisyan December 17, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Garik Gevorgyan December 25, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Samson Indzigulyan December 25, 2007 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Harutyun Vardazaryan January 9, 2008 §327 I, 30 months Erebuni Penal Institution
Hrayr Mkrtchyan January 14, 2008 §327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Hovhannes Arakelyan January 18, 2008 §327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Araz Arshakyan February 5, 2008 §327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Armen Mardoyan February 5, 2008 §327 I, 30 months Artik Penal Institution
Hamayak Eminyan February 6, 2008 §327 I, 27 months Artik Penal Institution
Davit Petrosyan February 7, 2008 §327 I, 30 months ErebuniPenal Institution
Martun Hovsepyan February 7, 2008 §327 I, 30 months ErebuniPenal Institution
Zirayr Karyan March 6, 2008 §327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Arman Kareyan March 7, 2008 §327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Ashot Simonyan March 12, 2008 §327 I, 36 months Artik Penal Institution
Hovik Stepanyan March 31, 2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Karo Aleksanyan April 4, 2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
David Arakelyan April 7, 2008 § 327 I, 12 months Erebun Penal Institution
Vahe Ananyan April 8, 2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Karen Voskanyan April 11, 2008 § 327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Vahram Baghramyan June 3, 2008 § 327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Alik Balayan July14, 2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Mkhitar Sargsyan July17, 2008 § 327 I, 36 months Erebun Penal Institution
Shahen Asatryan July31, 2008 § 327 I, 36 months Artik Penal Institution
Tigran Melikyan July 30,2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Gevorg Danughyan August 8,2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Gor Petrosyan August 15,2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Mher Barseghyan August 25,2008 § 327 I, 30 months Erebun Penal Institution
Vardan Kasemyan September 2, 2008 § 327 I, 36 months Erebun Penal Institution
Garegin Gogjyan September 13, 2008 § 327 I, 26 months Erebun Penal Institution
Armen Martirosyan October 2,2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Gagik Shakaryan October 6,2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
Grisha Ohanjanyan October 13, 2008 § 327 I, 24 months Erebun Penal Institution
No Jehovah’s Witness have been charged and is awaiting his trial.
One Jehovah’s Witnesses got suspended sentences:
Aghasi Yeghiazaryan May 7, 2007 §70 I, 24 months

Source Publication:
Source: http://app.moogo.com/files/iphr.moogo.com/Reports/armenian_hki_association_annual_report_on_2008_.doc

Name:

Invalid value

Comments:

Invalid value

Submit