On 10 and 11 May, 2012 in the framework of the
48th session of the UN Committee Against Torture, the third periodic report
of the Republic of Armenia was considered regarding implementation of the UN
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and
Punishment, ratified by the Republic of Armenia in 1993.

Interview with Tatevik Gharibyan, lawyer of
Civil Society Institute (CSI), who was present at the 48 the session of the UN
Committee Against Torture

How important this session was for the UN, the
Armenian authorities and population, the non-governmental organizations, which
submitted their reports?

It was a regular report, the third one, which
was submitted really late, but the members of the Committee noted that they are
grateful for the report, which was late but at least submitted. The last report
was submitted in 1999. In general, the UN highly appreciates participation of
non-governmental organizations, as they present additional information, which
allows to draw a more complete picture of situation of the state, and due to
their intervention, issues and questions are raised with an expectation to find
solutions. CSI actively observed the situation on torture, and submitted
a report prepared in cooperation with International Federation for
Human Rights (FIDH).

What questions were raised by you and what was
the reaction on them during the session?

During the session a number of cases were
highlighted, including submitted by us the cases of Levon Gulyan, Vahan
Khalafyan, and Tigran Ohanjanyan and Artak Nazaryan – murder in the army – and
other. The question on efficiency of the special investigation service was
raised regarding Levon Gulyan's case. The state answered that there is a court
decision to carry out a new expertise, and the case is in the phase of
investigation. We also raised the case of Stepan Hovakimyan, who has been under
custody for more than two years. This case is at the stage of judicial
proceedings, and the basis of the accusation is confessions, although since the
pre-trial stage he has declared that his confessions were obtained through
beatings.

What type of questions were raised by the
Committee, how well it is informed on current issues of Armenia?

The Committee raised issues on efficiency of
investigation of the cases of reported torture, on compensation to victims of
torture, on impunity. Although there is a special investigation service in
Armenia, they questioned effectiveness of their investigation. They asked
whether safeguards are provided to have a lawyer, to inform relatives, and to
medical expertise. It is well-known that the police may invite people to give
explanation on a case without informing them about their status in the case and
without sending formal written notice. At this time people are put in a very
vulnerable position. Notwithstanding the decision of the Court of Cassation
that a person should enjoy all the guarantees since the moment of his/her
appearance in the police, these guarantees are not actually provided.

The members of the UN Committee were well
informed and raised also a question on juvenile justice, particularly that
placement of children into special institutions was not regulated by
legislation. They were interested in trafficking, in the question that closed
institutions were overcrowded, and in maintenance of persons sentenced to life
imprisonment.

In addition, the question of investigation of
the 1st of March events was raised. On Khalafyan's case they asked whether
the investigation considered a version of murder in addition to the version of
suicide.

The lack of public trust toward the justice
system was discussed separately as the reason for victims not to report on
torture.

Did the state respond in a proper manner?

At the beginning the state was giving general
answers, but after that the Committee raised the questions again, expecting
more detailed answers. There was a question on amnesty, which according to the
Committee, should not apply to the cases of torture. As the right to be free
from torture is a jus cogens norm, an absolute right, nevertheless those who were
found guilty for torture of Khalafyan were released by amnesty. The state
representatives observed that there was an issue of definition of torture, and
persons who had been found guilty in case of Khalafyan were punished for abuse
of official authority, and, therefore, amnesty could apply to them.

The definition of “torture” is not formulated
correctly from the legal point of view. What was said about the definition of
“torture” in the RA legislation?

Since 2000, the Committee has pointed out that
the RA Criminal Code should contain definition of “torture” as legally defined
crime in accordance with the UN Convention Against Torture. Only after 12
years, the state developed a draft on changing the definition. It is just a
first step in the long path toward legislation. Our state has many things to do
that responsibilities provided in the UN Convention against Torture be
implemented.

What
shall happen after the 48th session of the UN Committee Against Torture?

The Committee Against Torture will come up
with conclusions on the basis of numerous materials and send its observations
and recommendations to the state. It is possible that they will include the
issue of effective investigation of reported torture.