Interview
with the member of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, President of
the Civil Society Institute NGO Arman Danielyan. 

Armenia is one of the 25 states which are party to the
UN Subcommittee  on Prevention of Torture
for already 3 years. You were elected the expert of the SPT for 2010 - 2014 and
presents Armenia. What will Armenia benefit?

By joining to the Optional Protocol to UN Convention
against Torture Armenia has joined to the countries which declare that are
ready to apply new method to fight torture. I would like to mention that I am
not presenting Armenia in the SPT and I am not constrained by responsibilities
in front of the state. I have been nominated from Armenia and was elected by
the State Parties.

How the experience gained from various countries is
useful for you as CSI President in fight against torture in Armenia?

Of course it is interesting to explore the practices in
various countries and make comparisons because “torture” is a cultural
phenomenon. In many cases it is manifested in the same way but the roots and
purposes may be different.

What is the
culture of torture in Armenia?

Certainly Armenia bears the Soviet culture and similar
situation could be observed almost in all post-soviet states. I have visited
Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine and they have the same culture there: torture is used in
police to obtain testimony. Further, the testimony obtained through torture is
accepted by the court and people are convicted based on their confessions. The
atmosphere of impunity, race for crime reveal rates is everywhere in police
system.

Does it mean that torture
is used because this was a accepted in Soviet times or because there is no
other mode of work for revealing crimes? Finally, what is the root cause of
torture in your opinion?

The existence of torture hinders improvement of the
professional skills in police system. There is no sense for the police officer
to be a good professional as far as torture allows “revealing” more crimes in
short period of time.  It is unknown what
part of the revealed crimes was really committed.

In this case, the professional police officer who is
supposed to investigate the case properly, i.e. collect evidence, find
witnesses, interrogate etc. will be able to reveal less crimes than the one
whom Chief of the Police named “butcher and stupid”, the one who would bring
people, would beat and force to confess into crimes the part of which they probably
did not commit.

Recently Committee on
Prevention of Torture visited Armenia. What was the CPT feedback if the visit
results are known?

The results of the visit are not known yet because
they prepare the report. It should be submitted to the Armenian Government
which will provide its comments in response. I think that we will learn about
the results of the visit next year.

This year UN SPT is
planning to visit Armenia. What kind of visit is this? 

This is going to be so called advisory visit on NPM.
The purposes of the visit differ from those of European Committee on Prevention
of Torture. UN SPT strives not to replicate the work of CPT and mostly seeks to
increase capacity and effectiveness of NPMs.

The Armenian NPM is
functioning attached to the Human Rights Defender’s Office. How would you as an
expert evaluate the work of Armenian NPM and what should be done?

The most important issue that I see at the moment is
that the state does not allocate funds to this mechanism while it has the
obligations under the UN Convention against Torture.

The state fails to meet its obligations. I do not want
to precipitate the situation but I am sure that the Subcommittee will point out
this issue, the fact that the state has established the National Preventive
Mechanism but fails to allocate funds for its functioning.

How the situation could
be changed in order to eliminate the “culture” of torture remained form soviet
era? What should be changed in Armenia in order to achieve progress?

Different mechanisms were applied in various countries
in the fight against torture. In the Eastern Europe so called surgical method
is common. It means that all police officers are dismissed and new people are
hired (this was done in Georgia as well). The new police officers work based on
new principles without repeating the old working style simply because they are
not familiar with it.

The system we have today simply spoils all newly
appointed officers because as soon as they involve in the system their
experienced colleagues train them on how to work. 

Is our system ready to
follow the surgical method? Will it be effective?

The surgical method was applied and proved to be
effective in other countries and I am not sure to what extent our authorities
are ready for this kind of serious reforms.

It seems that there is an attempt to follow the
evolutionary way. I do not know how effective it could be. At least the
statements of the Chief of Police demonstrate that it is necessary to fight
against torture, it should be eliminated etc.

Will the police officers who work in the system today
be able to reveal crimes without use of torture? I doubt. Perhaps with time the
self-purification process will start in the police and the police officers who
will not be able to work, simply will be ejected from the system.  Time will show. I am not very optimistic about
this issue. 

As a matter of fact, the most important is to create a
proper environment in the police system. The police officer should perceive
himself/herself rather as a defender of a citizen and not a representative of
the repressive structure. 

Unfortunately our police do not have such a
perception. When someone appears in police, he/she immediately feels that the
police system is aimed to punish regardless the reasons of why the latter
appeared in police, whether he/ she is guilty or not. The whole capacity of the
police is directed to punish people and I do not think that it has any positive
impact on the image of police officer.

What is the experience of
Western countries?

In Western countries or it is better to say in the
countries with western culture the situation is quite different. For instance,
I have visited New Zealand recently where the British model is in place. 

The police officer here clearly understands its
functions and acts based on that. On the other hand, the law provides the
police officer with wide possibilities to implement its functions in the frame
of its powers. While our legislation based on the presumption of culpability
envisage very tight frames. At the same time, if we introduce the legislation f
New Zealand to the police system of Armenia as it is now, it will lead to
anarchy because the police officer does not understand its role in the society.

What powers exactly do
you mean?

For instance, our legislation envisage that within 3
hours should be made a decision on arrest and within 72 hours after the arrest
one should be transferred to the court to obtain a decision on preliminary
detention. In New Zealand the law does not provide such terms. The law says
that after the arrest one should be transferred to the court rapidly. 

Everything is left at discretion of the police officer
and the latter knows its function well which is to protect a person, to find
the criminal and transfer to the court rapidly. 

When we say that the law does not provide clearly what
means “rapidly”, how many hours it means, the police officers say “it is very
clear, the law says rapidly, it means we should do it as quick as possible-if I
have arrested someone in the morning then I will take him/her to the court in
the afternoon, if arrested in the evening, will take him/her to the court in
the morning of the next day”. It is logical enough for them and there is no
need to define terms. While if our police officer is not restricted by precise
deadlines, he/she will keep a person in the detention facility for two months.

The statistics show that
there is almost no case instituted on torture allegations. As CSI mentioned on
numerous occasions, on one hand it happens because of the fear, on the other
hand because definition of torture is not clear. Are there other reasons?

Sure, the gap in the legislation is essential because
when the torture is not defined properly in the law there is a lack of
guarantees regarding torture. However this is not the only problem. I am
confident that even if the definition of torture is changed, the situation will
not be changed due to serious problem- impunity.

Everyone one knows that even if they complain there
will be no result and most likely they and their relatives will be subject to
pressure with the aim to dismiss the complaint. When it fails to happen, the
negotiations begin: dismiss your complaint and you will receive mild punishment
or if you do not dismiss the complaint, you will get severe punishment under
the charges brought against .

This is what happened in the case of Robert Hovsepyan.
He submitted a complaint on torture allegation, insisted that has been tortured
and brought the police officers to the court but then has been convicted to 7-
year of imprisonment based on the charges brought up within the frames of the
main case which is too severe for the charges brought against him despite the
fact that the reliance of the evidence was under the question. The fact that
Hovsepyan helped to reveal another crime has not been taken into consideration
and it was not recognized as mitigation. The prosecutor demanded 7 years (in
this case the maximum punishment envisaged was 8 years), the court decided 7
years. It is hard not to call it revenge.

CSI prioritizes the fight
against torture. In what way the organization plans to continue its work in the
realm?

There are several directions in our torture prevention
work. Firstly, the legislative field should be reformed; definition of torture
should be brought in compliance with the definition accepted in the world. 

We plan to launch surveys aimed at understanding and
detection of the root causes of torture and hot points.

We are trying to work on certain cases, seeking people
who are ready to speak out the issue, supporting them and striving to lead the
case to the logical end.

Do you see any progress
in the fight against torture in Armenia?

There is a shift in torture prevention. Particularly
after the appointment of the new Head of the Special Investigation Service
certain revival is noticed. Some cases are investigated while in the past this
agency failed the investigation of any case.  

I do hope that the position of the Chief of Police
concerning the police officers who use beatings that was presented to the
public recently will be reflected in internal instructions. So let’s hope that
that the fight against torture will start because if the police officer does
not understand that torture is inadmissible, he/she should be punished. However
I do hope that repressive methods will be replaced by others and elimination of
torture will be ensured. The future police officers should have the possibility
for high quality education starting from the Police Academy which will enable
them to reveal crimes. They should become good professionals in order to reveal
crimes without resorting to torture, repressive methods should not be
maintained. 

Interview by Mariam Sargsyan