Armenia

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices -
2006

Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

March 6, 2007

Armenia, with a population of approximately 3.2 million, is a republic. The
constitution provides for a popularly elected president (Robert Kocharian) and a
unicameral legislature (National Assembly). A constitutional referendum in 2005
and presidential and National Assembly elections in 2003 were seriously flawed
and did not meet international standards. The country has a multiparty political
system. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the
security forces; members of the security forces committed a number of human
rights abuses.

The government's human rights record remained poor, and serious problems
remained. Citizens were not able freely to change their government; authorities
beat pretrial detainees; the national security service and the national police
force acted with impunity; authorities engaged in arbitrary arrest and
detention; prison conditions were cramped and unhealthy, although slowly
improving; authorities imposed restrictions on citizens' privacy, freedom of the
press, and freedom of assembly. Journalists practiced self‑censorship, and the
government and laws restricted religious freedom. Violence against women and
spousal abuse were problems, as were trafficking in persons, discrimination
against persons with disabilities, and societal harassment of homosexuals. There
were reports of forced labor.

There were some improvements during the year. The implementation of
constitutional reforms ratified in 2005 led to some increase in judicial
independence and for the first time gave citizens direct access to the
Constitutional Court. Penalties for trafficking were toughened and a court for
the first time imposed financial, as well as criminal, penalties on traffickers.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS



Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

The government and its agents did not commit any politically motivated killings,
and unlike in 2005, neither the government nor advocacy groups reported any
deaths from hazing or other mistreatment during the year.

There were reports that an officer kicked a serviceman, who had previously
undergone testicular surgery, in the groin. The serviceman later died,
reportedly from cancer, after a second surgery on February 27. The officer
received a one‑year suspended sentence.

The military prosecutor's office said that there were no hazing‑related deaths
during the year.

Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and
seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories. During the year incidents along the
militarized line of contact separating the sides again resulted in numerous
casualties on both sides. Reporting from unofficial sources indicates that
approximately 20 persons were killed and 44 were wounded, including both
military and civilian casualties on both sides of the line of contact.

All parties to the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict have laid landmines along the
540‑mile border with Azerbaijan and along the line of contact. During the year
there were reports that a landmine killed one civilian and unexploded ordnance
killed another.

On September 5, unknown persons killed a senior tax official using a bomb
apparently planted under the seat of his government car. State prosecutors
opened an investigation and arrested two suspects, based on the testimony of the
official's driver. One suspect was released from prison on medical grounds. At
year's end the investigation was ongoing.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The constitution and law prohibit such practices; however, government security
forces employed them. Witnesses continued to report numerous cases of police
beating citizens during arrest and during interrogation while in detention.
Human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported similar allegations;
however, most cases of police mistreatment went unreported because of fear of
retribution.

On November 16, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) published a report on its 2004 visit
to the country. The CPT's investigators received numerous allegations from
detainees of mistreatment by officials. One individual asserted he had received
kicks and blows with fists and truncheons on various parts of his body; he
appeared to bear bruises and other medical indications consistent with this
account. The inmate said the ill treatment stopped when he agreed to sign a
confession. Although the testimony was taken in 2004, other portions of the
report criticized the authorities for not putting safeguards into place that
might reduce the likelihood of such treatment.

The government reported that police conducted five internal investigations into
misconduct by off-duty police officers during the year. Two officers were
subjected to disciplinary action, and criminal cases were opened against the
remaining three, all of whom were fired. The government reported that during the
year 20 police officers received administrative fines (compared to 49 in 2005)
for their roles in cases involving police mistreatment of detainees. Prosecutors
also opened 11 criminal cases against some of the police officers involved; the
disposition of those cases was unclear at the end of the year.

Unlike in 2005, when there was a constitutional referendum, there were no
reports that police beat opposition supporters during the year. There was no
indication that authorities were investigating reports that police beat
opposition supporters following the 2005 constitutional referendum (see section
3).

Social norms and substandard living conditions in the armed forces contributed
to mistreatment and injuries unrelated to military operations. Although there
was no reliable and up‑to‑date reporting on the full extent of military hazing,
soldiers reported to human rights NGOs that the practice continued. Local NGOs
reported instances of hazing and said parents of soldiers complained that
corrupt officials controlled military units. Authorities did not take any
significant measures to limit or stop the practice; however, 20 military
personnel were convicted in connection with criminal cases of hazing during the
year.

A soldier reported in February that fellow servicemen raped him while they were
on active duty. The case was under investigation at the end of the year.

In August Razmik Sargsian, a soldier who had been serving a 15-year sentence for
the 2003 murder of two fellow soldiers, staged several hunger strikes to protest
his innocence. Sargsian said interrogators, including military investigators and
military police officer Aram Baghdasaryan, physically mistreated him for five
days to obtain his confession for the killings. He claimed interrogators
suspended him by his hands and beat him and threatened him with rape.
Sargisian's confession implicated two other soldiers, and the court of first
instance sentenced all three to 15‑year terms in May 2005. Following an
unsuccessful appeal, the Court of Appeals extended their sentences to life in
prison on May 30. When the defendants' lawyers, Zaruhi Postanjian, Ashot Atoyan,
and Stepan Voskanian, asserted that the proceedings were fraudulent and designed
to cover up involvement of higher ranking personnel, state prosecutors initiated
contempt proceedings against the lawyers at the request of the three appeals
court judges who heard their cases (see section 1.e). On December 22, in a
significant assertion of judicial independence, the Court of Cassation, the
country's highest court, nullified the convictions of the soldiers and ordered
them released. The Court based its ruling on a provision of the Criminal
Procedural Code that allows a judge to send a case back to the prosecutor's
office for reinvestigation if the original investigation was not conducted
lawfully. Charges against the soldiers remained in place at year's end.

By law detainees may file complaints prior to trial to address alleged abuses
committed by authorities during criminal investigations; however, detainees must
obtain permission from police or the prosecutor's office in order to obtain a
forensic medical examination needed to substantiate a report of physical abuse.
Human rights NGOs reported that authorities rarely granted such permission (see
section 1.e.). There were no prosecutions or convictions of police for torture
or other mistreatment during the year. Police conducted 18 internal
investigations of complaints of brutality by their officers, but information on
the outcome of these investigations was not available at year's end.

The CPT described allegations that detainees had spent periods of up to 10 days
in various district divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Yerevan "in
cells deprived of suitable means of rest, without a mattress and a blanket and
without food (other than that brought by relatives)."

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Prison conditions remained poor and posed a threat to health, although the Civil
Society Monitoring Board (CSMB), an organization established by government
initiative involving prison monitoring by NGO personnel, reported some
improvements as authorities began to renovate old prisons. However, problems
remained: cells were overcrowded, most did not have adequate facilities, prison
authorities did not provide most inmates with basic hygiene supplies, and food
quality remained extremely poor. The CSMB reported in 2005 that prisoners were
at high risk of contracting tuberculosis, and adolescents held in juvenile
facilities rarely received the schooling required by law. The CSMB reported
other chronic problems, including denial of visitor privileges, medical neglect,
and in the most extreme cases, physical abuse.

In certain facilities prisoners bribed officials to obtain single occupancy
cells and to obtain additional comforts. There were also unverified reports that
authorities charged unofficial "fees" to family members and friends seeking to
deliver meals to inmates. In some prisons monitors noted that prisoners had
difficulty mailing letters and that some prison officials did not adequately
facilitate family visits.

A local NGO reported that of 62 prisoners held in pretrial detention in the Lori
region between January 1 and March 17, 16 showed signs of abuse. The NGO based
its findings on prison logs in which authorities documented the conditions of
prisoners transferred from pretrial detention. The same NGO reported that guards
and administrators at prisons in Nubarashen and Goris had beaten prisoners.

On July 23, four prisoners serving life sentences at Nubarashen Prison attempted
to escape. After they were caught they attempted suicide and later went on a
week‑long hunger strike to protest prison conditions. The governmental human
rights defender's office later sent a task force to the prison to investigate
and found that conditions at the prison had improved with the renovation of
cells and medical facilities but remained very poor.

The CSMB monitors reported that female prisoners had more freedom of movement
than male prisoners and that their facility was cleaner and better equipped.

Observers believed that most instances in which authorities abused prisoners
took place in pretrial detention facilities, which were under the control of the
Department of Police. Suspects may be held in such facilities without charge for
up to three days, and longer at the request of the prosecutor general and with
the assent of a judge.

The government permitted local NGOs and international rights groups, including
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to monitor conditions in
prisons. Authorities continued to permit personnel of the CSMB to visit prisons
without giving advance notice, as they have done since 2004. However, despite
the government's commitment to give the CSMB access to all detention facilities,
including holding cells and local police stations, the Department of Police did
not permit the CSMB or any other locally based organization to visit detention
facilities under its control during the year.

The ICRC was permitted to visit both prisons and pretrial detention centers and
did so in accordance with its standard modalities.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention; however, in practice
authorities continued to arrest and detain criminal suspects without warrants.




Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

The national police and the National Security Service (NSS) are responsible for
domestic security, intelligence activities, and border control; they report
directly to the prime minister. Both services lacked the training, resources,
and established procedures to implement reforms or to prevent incidents of
abuse. Prisoners reported that police and NSS authorities did little to
investigate allegations of abuse. As a result, impunity was a serious problem.

In contrast to 2005, the government made some efforts to modernize and reform
police and security forces, although the changes had mostly to do with
infrastructure. On August 25, police opened a community justice center in
Vanadzor with help from the local affiliate of the international NGO, Project
Harmony. The center offered counseling to first‑time juvenile offenders and
brought local police into public schools for community outreach. On October 30,
a new community policing project designed to facilitate cooperation between
police and civilians was initiated by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) at the Arabkir district police department in
Yerevan.

Corruption remained a significant problem in the police force and security
service. Police officers routinely stopped motorists at roadside checkpoints to
extort illegal "fees." Motorists reported that traffic police generally demanded
approximately $2.80 (1000 drams) to pass a checkpoint. Investigative journalists
alleged that police inspectors and superiors received a portion of the proceeds
from each traffic stop. As a result, there were no incentives to curb the
practice and no efforts by the government during the year to do so.

There was no dedicated mechanism for investigating police abuse. By law citizens
may sue police in court as they would sue any person against whom they had an
adjudicable complaint. The government reported that during the year citizens
lodged 69 civil complaints against police in court. Judges decided 26 of those
cases in favor of the citizens and dismissed the remaining 43.

Arrest and Detention

Prosecutors and police must first obtain a warrant from a judge in order to
arrest a suspect, except to avert the imminent flight of the suspect or when
they witness a crime in progress. Although judges rarely denied police requests
for arrest warrants, police at times made arrests without a warrant on the
pretext that detainees were material witnesses rather than suspects. The law
provides that a detainee must either be indicted or released within three days
of arrest, and this procedure was usually followed in practice; however, in some
cases police skirted this requirement by alleging that suspects were material
witnesses, who do not have the right to prompt judicial determination or legal
counsel. The law provides for a bail system; however, most courts denied
requests for bail in favor of detention.

The law also requires police to inform detainees of their right to remain
silent, to make a phone call, and to be represented by an attorney from the
moment of arrest and before indictment (including state‑provided lawyers for
indigent detainees). In practice police did not always abide by the law. They
often questioned and pressured detainees to confess prior to indictment and in
the absence of counsel. Since witnesses do not have the right to legal counsel
or prompt judicial determination, police used this loophole to interrogate
suspects in the absence of counsel and to detain them beyond the three‑day limit
for indicting suspects. Police sometimes restricted family members' access to
detainees.

During a year without national elections, there were no large demonstrations;
arbitrary detention of protestors was not a problem.

Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. According to the law, a suspect
may not be detained for more than 12 months awaiting trial and authorities
generally did not exceed this limit. The government reported that during the
first nine months of the year, pretrial detainees constituted on average about
25 percent of a prison population of nearly 3,000.



e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, despite structural
changes implemented during the year that led to somewhat greater independence,
courts remained subject to political pressure from the executive and legislative
branches, and judicial corruption was a problem.

The law provides for a three‑tier court system, including the highest court (the
Court of Cassation), the Court of Appeals, and courts of first instance. Cases
originate in courts of first instance; appeals are lodged with the Court of
Appeals and the Court of Cassation. There is also a Constitutional Court, which
rules on the constitutionality of legislation, approves international
agreements, and rules on election‑related questions.

Citizens' right to appeal was strengthened by changes approved in the 2005
constitutional referendum and enacted into law on July 1. These changes gave
ordinary citizens the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court, which
previously could only accept cases proposed by the president and approved by a
two‑thirds majority of the National Assembly or cases involving election‑related
issues brought by the National Assembly or presidential candidates.

Changes to the constitution which allowed citizens to bring appeals to the
Constitutional Court took effect on July 1. From that date through August 22,
288 citizens appealed to the court, which immediately threw out more than 60
percent of the cases, because they did not call into question a law's
constitutionality and thus were not within the court's mandate. Of the remaining
109 appeals, hearings were scheduled for 13. The first hearings took place
September 12 through November 14.

The president exercised dominant influence over the judiciary, including over
the appointment and dismissal of judges and chairmen of courts on all levels. He
has the authority to make appointments based on the recommendations of the
Judicial Council, the supreme judicial body in the country, which previously
consisted of nine judges, two legal scholars, and three prosecutors, all of whom
he also appointed. The judicial reforms that took effect on July 1 significantly
reduced the president's power to appoint members of the Judicial Council. He
subsequently had the right to appoint only two of a 13‑member body; the other
members are either appointed by the National Assembly or elected by a General
Assembly of Judges by secret ballot. The Constitutional Court is the only other
exception to presidential dominance in judicial appointments; he appoints only
four of its nine judges.

On December 22, the Court of Cassation took the highly unusual decision of
voiding two lower court decisions on the grounds that the original investigation
had not been conducted lawfully (see section 1.c.).

Even with these changes, however, the judiciary was still far from independent.
The Ministry of Justice remained responsible for the administration of judicial
exams, the disciplining of judges, and the development of legislation relating
to judicial functioning.



Trial Procedures

The law generally requires that trials be public, but it permits many
exceptions, including when a trial's secrecy is in the interest of "morals,"
national security, or for the "protection of the private lives of the
participants." Juries are not used. A single judge issues verdicts in courts of
first instance, and panels of judges preside over the other courts. Defendants
generally have the right, and are generally required, to be present at their
trials, but this requirement also has many exceptions. They have the right to
counsel of their own choosing, and the government is required to provide them
with defense counsel upon request; however, this obligation was frequently not
honored in the regions outside of Yerevan, where there often were not enough
defense lawyers. Defendants also commonly refused free counsel due to the poor
quality of the public defenders or the perception that public defenders colluded
with prosecutors.

Defendants may confront witnesses and present evidence, and they and their
attorneys may examine the government's case in advance of trial. Judges
generally granted defendants' requests for additional time to prepare cases. The
law provides for the presumption of innocence; in practice this right was not
always observed. In one case during the year, defendants' lawyers who criticized
the outcome of their case, were sued for contempt of court by the judges
involved (see section 1.c).

Court statistics released on August 7 indicated that fewer than 1 percent of
court cases resulted in acquittals. However, these statistics do not reflect the
many cases that judges remanded to the prosecutor's office for lack of evidence
and that prosecutors dropped and never sent back to court. Thus prosecutors, in
effect, often lost their cases during the year. According to one international
NGO specializing in legal issues, pretrial investigations lasted an average of
one to three months. Both defendants and prosecutors have the right to appeal.

There were reports that prosecutors used confessions obtained through methods
that some NGOs asserted amounted to torture, as central elements of their cases.
Defense lawyers may present evidence of torture to overturn improperly obtained
confessions; however, defendants stated that judges and prosecutors refused to
admit such evidence into court proceedings, even when the perpetrator could be
identified.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

Armen Babajanian, the editor of the opposition newspaper Yerevan Zhamanak, was
arrested on June 26 and charged with document forgery and evasion of military
service. He was convicted on September 8. Babajanian admitted his guilt, but his
four‑year sentence was somewhat harsher than is customary, and some observers
charged that he was the victim of selective enforcement.

Apart from this possible exception, there were no reports of political prisoners
or detainees.

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies

The same courts hear civil and criminal cases. Citizens had access to courts to
bring lawsuits seeking damages for, or cessation of, a human rights violation;
however, the courts were widely perceived as corrupt, and potential litigants in
civil cases often evaluated the advisability of bringing suit on the basis of
whether they or their opponents had greater resources with which to influence
judges. Citizens also had access to the ombudsman's office, and during the year
they were given access to the Constitutional Court when they judged that
constitutional rights were not being protected (see sections 1.e., and 4).

Residents of approximately 100 houses in downtown Yerevan that were razed to
make way for a new boulevard lost a number of court cases protesting their
evictions during the year. The Constitutional Court ruled on April 18 that the
2002 government decision that made the demolitions possible violated parts of
the constitution, but the court did not obligate authorities to return the
remaining houses to their former owners.



f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence



The law prohibits unauthorized searches and provides for the right to privacy
and confidentiality of communications; however, the government did not always
respect these rights in practice.

There were several reports of government surveillance of opposition Heritage
Party leader Raffi Hovhannesian. The party also reported that its members were
harassed and threatened (see section 3).

By law, judges may authorize authorities to wiretap a telephone or intercept
correspondence only after being presented with compelling evidence; however, the
law was not strictly enforced in practice, and some judges arbitrarily granted
permission.

At times police maintained surveillance of draft-aged men to prevent them from
fleeing the country.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the
government partially limited freedom of speech. There were incidents of
violence, intimidation, and self‑censorship in the press.

The law prohibits incitement to national, racial, or religious animosity. There
were no prosecutions under this provision during the year, unlike in 2005 when
Armen Avetisyan, the leader of the Union of Armenian Aryans, was convicted of
this offense and given a three-year suspended sentence for making anti‑Semitic
and anti‑Yezidi statements in a press interview (see section 2.c.).

Most newspapers were privately owned with the exception of government‑sponsored
Hayastani Hanrapetutyun and its Russian‑language version, Respublika Armenii.
The print media pursued stories vigorously and expressed a wide variety of views
without restriction, but no media outlet was completely independent of patronage
from economic or political interest groups or individuals.

Newspaper circulation was very limited, and most of the population relied on
television and radio for news and information. There were more than 20 radio and
45 television stations, most of them privately operated. In Yerevan and regional
cities, private television stations generally offered news coverage of good
technical quality; however, the substantive quality of news reporting on
television and radio varied. Most stations were owned by progovernment
politicians or well-connected businessmen, factors that led journalists to
engage in self‑censorship. Major broadcast media outlets generally expressed
progovernment views. Public Television of Armenia (H1) generally avoided
editorial commentary or reporting critical of the government.

In 2003 the National Commission for Television and Radio (NCTVR), the governing
body for the country's media whose members are all appointed by President
Kocharian, awarded a progovernment national television channel, Kentron TV, a
broadcast frequency that had previously belonged to A1‑Plus, one of the
country's last politically independent television stations. Observers alleged
the decision was politically motivated due to A1‑Plus's previous criticism of
the Kocharian administration. During the year A1‑Plus continued its unsuccessful
efforts to obtain a license to resume broadcasting. Since A1-Plus lost its
license it has unsuccessfully filed 12 applications for radio or television
licenses. An OSCE report, The State of Media Freedom in Armenia, released in
July, recommended that the composition of the NCTVR and similar regulatory
bodies be changed to represent the political diversity of the country and to
include NGOs and professional associations.

In September, in an action unusual in a National Assembly where the ruling
coalition has a comfortable majority, lawmakers rejected government-sponsored
legislation that would have altered regulation of the media. The legislation
would have further restricted media freedom, reduced or eliminated television
coverage of National Assembly sessions, and altered the composition of the NCTVR.
Under the government proposal, the National Assembly would appoint half of the
members of the NCTVR and the president the other half, but none would be
selected by other elements of society as recommended by the OSCE report.

International media outlets generally operated freely.

The editor of the opposition newspaper Yerevan Zhamanak was arrested on June 26
and charged with document forgery and evasion of military service. He was
convicted on September 8.

Although he admitted guilt, Armen Babajanian's four‑year sentence was harsher
than is customary for such offenses, and some observers regarded him as a victim
of selective enforcement see section 1.e).

There were unconfirmed reports of several incidents of harassment and
intimidation of journalists that appeared to be related to their journalistic
activities.

Independent investigative journalist Edik Baghdasarian reported that in July he
began to receive e‑mail threats following the publication of two articles on his
Web site criticizing a new political party.

Journalist Gagik Shamshian, who works for opposition‑owned Chorrord Ishkhanutiun
newspaper, reported that a gang of men attacked him on July 11 after he publicly
accused the local district prefect's father of threatening him. He had written
an article saying that two men arrested on charges of bank robbery were
relatives of the prefect. Shamshian claimed the prefect's brother was among his
attackers. Shamshian said law enforcement officials harassed him after the
attacks for refusing to retract his testimony against the prefect's brother. The
local police told Shamshian they had received complaints detailing criminal
activity on his part, which he denied. Several weeks later, he retracted the
allegations. The criminal case against him went to court December 14, with no
verdict by year's end. On July 20, an unknown person broke the windows of
Chorrord Ishkhanutiun's office, poured gasoline on the windowsills, and set them
on fire. Citing disillusionment with the country's law enforcement officers,
Chorrord Ishkhanutiun did not ask for a police investigation. The editor said
she wasn't sure of the motive behind the fire; however, others drew a connection
between the incident and the paper's reporting on the district prefect.

On September 6, unknown persons assaulted Ovannes Galagzhyan, the
editor‑in‑chief of the opposition‑sponsored newspaper Iravunk, in an attack he
believed was related to political topics discussed in his newspaper.

There was no official censorship, although journalists and opposition parties
complained that the government put pressure on television stations not to grant
air time to several out‑of‑favor politicians. Print and broadcast journalists
continued to practice self‑censorship because of pressure from official sources
and from economic self-interest.

Internet Freedom

There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that
the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups
could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by
electronic mail. Internet cafes were widely available in the cities, although
local ISP connections were often too slow to be useful.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

There were no restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Freedom of Assembly

The constitution provides for freedom of assembly, but there were some limits on
this right. Organizers are not required to obtain a government permit to stage a
rally or demonstration but are required to notify authorities in advance of
their plans for such events. There were also locations, such as military
installations and sensitive power generation facilities, where persons could not
demonstrate without permission. The law empowers police to break up illegal
rallies and demonstrations, particularly those that encourage violence and the
overthrow of the government. During the year police did not break up
demonstrations.



The government did not interfere when small rallies took place without
permission.

There were reports that government authorities hindered political party meetings
and pressured property owners to evict opposition parties from meeting
facilities. For example, during the year the opposition Heritage Party was
evicted from its offices, ostensibly over a lease dispute (see section 3). In
May 2005 Aram Karapetyan asserted that his New Times opposition party was
evicted from its headquarters in Yerevan following pressure on the landlord by
government officials.

Freedom of Association

The constitution provides for freedom of association, and the government
generally respected it in practice. However, registration requirements for all
political parties, associations, and secular and religious organizations
remained cumbersome, exacting, and time‑consuming. The law stipulates that
citizens have the right to form associations, including political parties and
trade unions, except for persons serving in the armed services and law
enforcement agencies. As in previous years, no human rights groups or political
organizations reported problems with registration, although the Heritage Party
reported harassment of its members (see section 3).

c. Freedom of Religion

The law provides for freedom of religion; however, there were some restrictions
in practice. The Armenian Apostolic Church has formal legal status as the
national church, which gives it privileges not afforded to other faiths. The law
gives minority religious groups that register with the government specific
rights, such as the right to publish newspapers and magazines, rent meeting
places on government property, broadcast television or radio programs, and
sponsor official visitors. Unregistered religious organizations may only import
small quantities of religious literature for private use. The law also requires
all religious organizations except the Armenian Apostolic Church to obtain prior
permission to engage in public religious activities. There were no reports that
religious groups were denied, or otherwise had problems with, registration.

The law prohibits incitement to national, racial, or religious animosity. There
were no prosecutions under this provision during the year, unlike in 2005 when
Armen Avetisyan, the leader of the Union of Armenian Aryans, was convicted of
this offense and given a three-year suspended sentence for making anti‑Semitic
and anti‑Yezidi statements in a press interview.

Although the country has a law providing alternative service for conscientious
objectors, the military services themselves administer the alternative service,
and many members of Jehovah's Witnesses refused the alternative program for that
reason. At year's end, according to Jehovah's Witnesses lawyers, 52 of their
members were in prison, 49 of them serving sentences and three awaiting trial.

On October 27, the Jewish community, with assistance from the government and
other groups, unveiled a new Holocaust memorial to replace the old one that had
been vandalized earlier in the year.

The law prohibits proselytizing‑‑which is left undefined in the law‑‑by minority
religions and bans foreign funding for foreign‑based churches; neither ban was
enforced. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints reported police
harassment of missionaries in July 2005; however, church officials said members
had not experienced any harassment since then.

The Jehovah's Witnesses organization reported that an Armenian Apostolic priest
assaulted two of its members on August 21. According to the group, one of the
victims suffered a broken arm and a concussion. The group said police opened an
investigation but quickly ended it, stating that the priest expressed remorse
for his crime.

Societal Abuses and Discrimination

Societal attitudes toward most minority religions were ambivalent. Unlike in
2005, Yezidi leaders said that they had received no reports that police and
local authorities discriminated against them.

According to observers the general population viewed "non‑traditional" religious
groups with suspicion and expressed negative attitudes about members of
Jehovah's Witnesses because of their proselytizing practices and because they
refused to serve in the armed forces. Members of Jehovah's Witnesses continued
to experience occasional societal discrimination.

On March 17, two young members of the Union of Armenian Aryans, a small
ultranationalist group, distributed a leaflet in the city of Vanadzor calling
for death to members of religious sects. The staff of a local human rights NGO
that reported the incident to the local prosecutor's office received e‑mailed
death threats June 18.

There were reports of isolated incidents in which Protestants in rural areas
were fired from their jobs because of their religious beliefs.

Jewish community leaders estimated the community's size at between 500 and 1,000
persons (the government does not provide official figures for religious
adherents), but unlike in 2005, leaders of the Jewish community said that they
had no reports of harassment of Jews during the year.

In September the environment minister, Vardan Ayvazian, publicly referred to
representatives of a foreign mining company during a press conference as
"kikes."

There were no reports that individuals or groups distributed anti‑Semitic
literature.

Approximately one thousand Muslims resided in the capital. There was no formally
operating mosque, although one surviving 18th century mosque in the capital
remained open for Friday prayers without government interference, though it was
not officially registered.

For a more detailed discussion, see the 2006 International Religious Freedom
Report.

d. Freedom of Movement Within The Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and
Repatriation



The law provides for these rights, but there were some restrictions in practice.

The government generally did not restrict internal movement. Corruption and an
inefficient bureaucracy hindered citizens' efforts to register changes in their
status, including changes in official places of residence. This hampered efforts
to emigrate. To leave the country on a temporary or permanent basis, citizens
must obtain an exit visa. Exit visas for temporary travel out of the country may
be routinely purchased at a cost of approximately $2.80 (1,000 drams) for each
year of validity and may be purchased when a passport is issued for the entire
term of validity of the passport. Visas may also be obtained later. There was an
official 10‑day waiting period for visas, but officials commonly agreed to
expedite them in exchange for bribes up to about $30 (10,714 drams). Citizens
who opted not to purchase the appropriate visas, but attempted to depart the
country, were not permitted to leave.

The exit visa process is more difficult for citizens leaving the country
permanently. The registration agency must deregister them, which entails sending
queries to numerous other agencies to determine whether the citizen has any
outstanding debts or obligations. The process commonly took several months to
complete, and according to some citizens, authorities used the exit permit
process to exact bribes which, by some accounts, totaled hundreds of dollars.
Permission to depart the country permanently may be denied to persons who
possess state secrets, are subject to military service, are involved in pending
court cases, or who have outstanding financial obligations. Men of military age
who have not completed service requirements must overcome substantial
bureaucratic obstacles to travel abroad, including excessive delays in
processing and officials soliciting bribes for exit stamps.

The law does not prohibit forced exile, but there were no reports that the
government employed it.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) found in a study released in 2005 that 8,399
IDPs lived in the country. The NRC said the number did not change during the
year.

During the country's war with Azerbaijan, the government evacuated approximately
65 thousand households from the border region, but most returned or settled
elsewhere. Of the 8,399 remaining IDPs, almost two-thirds could not return to
their villages, which were surrounded by Azerbaijani territory, and others chose
not to return due to socio-economic vulnerability or a fear of land mines. IDPs
enjoyed full rights as citizens, but the government did not provide special
programs to help them adjust to their new surroundings. IDPs had access to
international assistance programs and there were no reports of abuse of IDPs.

Protection of Refugees

The law provides for the granting of asylum or refugee status to persons in
accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
its 1967 protocol, and the government has established a system for providing
protection to most refugees. In practice the government generally provided
protection against refoulement, the return of persons to a country where they
feared persecution. The government granted refugee status or asylum during the
year.

As of December 26, 646 persons had applied for asylum and the government granted
120 of those requests. Two were granted refugee status, and the government
provided temporary protection to 118 individuals who did not qualify as refugees
under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 protocol.

The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees and
asylum seekers.

There was an established procedure for granting asylum; however, a combination
of frequent rotations of inexperienced border officials and little training on
asylum procedures, at times caused delays and difficulties with refugee
processing at airports and land borders. International organizations asserted
that Russian border guards usually came into first contact with would‑be
asylum‑seekers at the borders with Turkey and Iran, as well as at the main
international airport in Yerevan, and often refused them entry without informing
either the government or the UNHCR. However, the Russian guards, who operated on
the basis of an agreement between the two countries, were being phased out.

Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their
Government



Although the law provides citizens with the right to change their government
peacefully, that right was restricted in practice due to repeated flaws in the
conduct of elections.

Elections and Political Participation

International observers found the 2003 presidential and National Assembly
elections to be well below international standards. There were serious
irregularities, including ballot box stuffing, discrepancies in vote counts,
partisan election commissions, and wide use of government resources to support
the incumbent president. Domestic observers noted similar irregularities in
local elections in September and October 2005.

In November 2005 a series of constitutional amendments were approved by a
national referendum which made potentially significant changes in the division
of powers between the branches. Although the balloting was conducted mostly
without incident, Council of Europe observers reported discrepancies between the
reported results and the apparent lack of turnout (a two-thirds majority of all
registered voters was required for adoption, and a previous constitutional
referendum had failed for lack of turnout). Domestic observers reported ballot
stuffing, unauthorized individuals accompanying voters to the voting booths and
ballot boxes to instruct them on how to vote, and intimidation of opposition
observers. As it was technically not required to do so, the government declined
to invite the OSCE to observe the voting process.

Authorities harassed opposition supporters. On March 4, the Ministry of
Justice's Department of State Property Management, armed with a court order,
evicted the opposition Heritage Party from its offices, ostensibly over a lease
dispute. When the party staff was allowed to return temporarily on May 29, they
reported that their central computer had been hacked on March 8. Party officials
reported instances of harassment of party members throughout the country after
March 8 and attributed them to the hacking of the computer, which contained
addresses and telephone numbers of party members.

There was a widespread public perception, reflected in the press and the
speeches of politicians, that a small elite of "oligarchs" exercised
disproportionate influence on public affairs.

The Orinats Yerkir party lost many members following its withdrawal from the
governing coalition on May 12. Party leader Artur Baghdasarian asserted later
that the president's office had pressured them to leave the faction, and there
were reports that members were threatened with loss of employment and the
closure of their businesses.

There were seven women in the 131‑seat National Assembly but none in the
cabinet.

There were no members of ethnic minorities in the National Assembly or cabinet.

Government Corruption and Transparency

Corruption was widespread, as was citizens' awareness of it. In an August Gallup
poll commissioned by a foreign organization, one in 10 respondents, asked to
name the most serious problem facing the country, named corruption, placing it
in third place behind economic concerns and the problem of Nagorno‑Karabakh. The
country scored 2.9 in Transparency International's 2005 Corruption Perceptions
Index. The index reflects the perceptions of business people and country
analysts using a scale of zero to 10 with zero being considered highly corrupt.
Amalia Kostanian, head of the local affiliate of Transparency International
stated that the expert and public perception was that corruption was increasing.
However, the public, which rarely protested practices such as routine
bribe-paying, was generally politically apathetic and appeared to be resigned to
the prevalence of corruption.

The government did not adequately maintain its own anticorruption programs. For
example, an anticorruption council headed by the prime minister met only twice
during the year, violating its own regulations, and a monitoring commission
established by the council did not meet at all during the year.

According to the government, 69 government officials were charged in 46
corruption cases during the year. At least 16 of those officials were convicted
under anticorruption laws. The disposition of the remaining cases was unclear at
year's end.

The law provides for access to government information as well as for its
dissemination, but in practice the government rarely provided access. In July
the Yerevan mayor's office, which in 2005 was described by an NGO focusing on
freedom of information as one of the worst providers of information access, set
up an information center in city hall. Though the office was still in its
infancy at year's end, the same NGO described the staff of the center as serious
about its work.

Citizens had little awareness of their right to information, and those who were
aware of this right were often unable to exercise them. The first instinct of
government employees generally was to block access to information rather than to
provide it. In some cases the officials themselves were not aware of laws
providing for freedom of information.

Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental
Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights

A number of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated
without government restrictions, investigating and publishing their findings on
human rights cases. Government officials were somewhat cooperative and
responsive to their views.

During the year more than 20 independent local religious and human rights
organizations and local affiliates of international organizations operated in
the country. They included the Armenian Helsinki Committee, the Civil Society
Institute, the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Hope and Help, the International
Committee of the Red Cross, Junior Achievement, Mission Armenia, the Open
Society Institute, and Transparency International. The government, while not
soliciting contacts with these organizations, generally did not deny requests to
meet with domestic NGO monitors. Authorities followed some of their
recommendations, particularly those related to social welfare, education, or
those involving local matters.

With one possible exception, NGOs did not report experiencing reprisals for
criticizing the authorities. On one occasion authorities subjected an NGO that
had accused an official of wrongdoing in relation to trafficking, to an
unexpected tax inspection (see section 5).

There was no progress in the investigation into the 2004 incident in which
unknown persons beat Mikael Danielyan, the director of the Helsinki Committee
human rights NGO, after Danielyan had given a controversial interview to an
Azerbaijani newspaper. Authorities suspended the investigation shortly after the
incident.

The government was generally cooperative with international NGOs. It permitted
visits by international organizations to prisons and in the case of the ICRC, to
detention centers operated by the police.

In 2005 the country's first human rights ombudsman complained that government
interference, including a ruling by the Constitutional Court, limited her
ability to influence the government's implementation of her recommendations. On
February 17, the National Assembly elected a successor. One of his first actions
was to petition the Constitutional Court to rule find government decision to
expropriate residential houses and apartments in certain parts of downtown
Yerevan to be unconstitutional (see section 1.e.). Although the court did so, it
did not provide any remedies for the citizens deprived of their property without
adequate compensation.

From February 17, when the new ombudsman took office, through December 11, the
ombudsman's office received 1,178 citizen complaints. At year's end there was no
information on the disposition of these complaints.

Section5 Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

The constitution and law prohibit discrimination based on race, gender,
disability, language, or social status, but there was societal discrimination
against women, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and homosexuals.

Women

There is no law against domestic violence. Few cases of spousal abuse or other
violence against women were reported during the year, although such violence was
believed to be widespread. While there was no recent information on the extent
of the problem, in a 2001 survey, 45 percent of the (female) respondents
acknowledged that family members subjected them to psychological abuse, and 25
percent considered themselves victims of physical abuse. Most cases of domestic
violence were not reported to police because victims were afraid of physical
harm, were apprehensive that police would return them to their husbands, or were
embarrassed to make family problems public. Several NGOs in the Yerevan and
Gyumri areas provided shelter and assistance, including psychological and legal
counseling, to battered women.

Rape, including spousal rape, is a criminal offense and carries a maximum
penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. In the first nine months of the year,
authorities registered 31 cases of rape and attempted rape; however, societal
stigma contributed to the underreporting of those crimes. Authorities prosecuted
and convicted 14 individuals involved in seven cases of rape, and five
individuals involved in three cases of attempted rape during the year. In 2005
authorities prosecuted 21 individuals charged with these offenses.

Prostitution and sex tourism are not illegal, but operating brothels is
prohibited. Operating a brothel and engaging in other forms of pimping are
punishable by one to 10 years' imprisonment. According to the NGO Hope and Help,
there were fewer than 5,000 prostitutes, approximately 1,500 of them in Yerevan.
Police and other security forces were complicit in, or tolerated, prostitution.

Trafficking in women for sexual exploitation was a problem (see section 5,
Trafficking).

The law does not specifically prohibit sexual harassment, although it addresses
lewd acts and indecent behavior. Society generally did not consider cases of
sexual harassment important enough to justify legal action. Although there were
no official statistics, sexual harassment appeared to be widespread.

Men and women enjoy equal legal status, although gender discrimination existed
and was a continuing problem in the public and private sectors. According to a
survey conducted 2005 in Yerevan, women earned on average 40 percent of what men
earned. Women generally were not afforded the same professional opportunities as
men and often were relegated to more menial or low‑skill jobs.

Children

The government was committed to protecting children's rights and welfare, but it
did not allocate resources sufficient to fulfill this commitment.

Education is free, universal, and compulsory through age 14; secondary education
is provided through the complete secondary level. According to the UN
Development Program, in 2003, 84 percent of students completed schooling through
age 14, and 36 percent studied through age 16. Many facilities were impoverished
and in poor condition. Access to education in rural areas remained difficult,
and work in the fields during harvest season took precedence over school for
many children. Lack of funding to provide heat prompted school officials in many
areas to extend winter school breaks by as much as an additional month. Many
teachers demanded bribes from parents in return for good or passing grades.

In 2005 the government began to focus on education reform, and the 2005‑2006
national budget included an allocation for increases in educators' salaries.

A 2004 survey commissioned by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) found that school
drop‑out rates were high for children from poor communities. NGOs reported that
school absenteeism was also on the rise.

A high percentage of children in the Yezidi community did not attend school,
partly for economic reasons and partly because schools lacked Yezidi teachers
and books in their native language. In September the government published and
distributed Kurdish‑language primary school textbooks for Yezidi schoolchildren.
The government also published Assyrian‑language primary school textbooks during
the year.

Free basic health care was available to boys and girls through age eight but
often was of poor quality, and officials often demanded overt or concealed
payment for services.

Physical abuse of children was not believed to be a serious problem, and the
prosecutor general's office did not report any cases during the year. UNICEF
reported that psychological abuse was widespread and that in 2004 there had been
a few registered cases of sexual abuse in special education schools.

Experts believed child marriage was a problem among the small Yezidi and Kurdish
ethnic minorities, but there were no specific reports of this practice during
the year.

Trafficking in girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation was a problem (see
section 5, Trafficking).

Observers did not believe that child labor was a serious problem (see section
6.d.).

UNICEF reported that the number of children begging or working on the street
appeared to be on the decline. Abuse of street children did not appear to be a
serious problem.

Trafficking in Persons

Authorities reported that the country was a source and transit point for women
and girls trafficked primarily for sexual exploitation to the United Arab
Emirates and Turkey. It was also, to a lesser extent, a destination for women
trafficked for sexual exploitation. There were also reports of men being
trafficked to Russia for labor.

According to the general prosecutor's office, at least 40 persons were victims
of trafficking during the year, including four victims exploited within the
country and 36 exploited in the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Russia. The
general prosecutor's office also reported that 99 persons were victims of
pimping during the year, including 38 exploited within the country and 61
exploited in the UAE and Turkey. Trafficking organizations typically recruited
victims who were already engaged in local prostitution. The majority of
identified victims were aware that they were being recruited to work in the sex
industry in other countries; however, they were unaware of the traffickers'
intent or the true exploitive circumstances of the conditions in destination
countries. Once in the country of destination, victims were deprived of their
travel documents, locked in hotel rooms, and told that they must "repay" their
expenses. This initial consent, unfortunately contributed to an overall lack of
identification of trafficking by authorities. There were reports that
traffickers encouraged women to become recruiters, promising them that they
could keep a percentage of their recruits' earnings. Women engaged in
prostitution, orphans who had outgrown their institutions, the homeless, and
those in difficult financial situations were at particular risk of being
trafficked. Trafficking victims, who came largely from impoverished communities,
were at greatly increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and
there were some reported incidents of physical violence.

The law prohibits trafficking in persons. On July 16, the National Assembly
adopted legislation that toughened trafficking penalties. The new law made
trafficking in persons punishable by imprisonment for three to 15 years,
depending on whether there were aggravating factors such as the death of victims
or involvement of a minor.

During the first nine months of the year, eight defendants were convicted under
the trafficking statute, according to the prosecutor general's office. During
that same period, courts convicted 18 defendants under the pimping statute.

On December 12, a court in Gyumri ruled on the country's first labor trafficking
case, sentencing the trafficker, Ararat Muradyan, to five years' imprisonment.
The court also ordered the defendant to provide financial restitution to the
victims, the first order for restitution in any trafficking case. In April 2004
the three male victims, including a 16-year-old boy, had been sent to the
Russian republic of Tatarstan for construction work; they were held against
their will and forced to work for 16 months before the Tatarstan authorities
freed them.

In November 2005 the prosecutor general's office opened a criminal case on
charges of trafficking against Ashot Hovsepyan, and Sos Meliksetyan, a local
nightclub manager. They were charged with trafficking four victims for work in a
nightclub. This was the first clear indication that the country was a
destination for trafficking. The NGO Hope and Help took the victims into its
shelter. On January 8, a court sentenced Meliksetyan to two years' correctional
labor, and a warrant for Hovsepyan's arrest was outstanding at year's end.

A governmental interagency commission, the national police, the prosecutor's
office, and the NSS are responsible for coordinating and implementing
antitrafficking policy and for combating trafficking. The government actively
sought bilateral cooperation with several trafficking destination countries and
regularly shared information with these partners.

Victims reported that Russian and Armenian border guards were easily bribed.
Some prosecutors were also reportedly complicit in trafficking. Allegations of
official complicity with traffickers continued to hurt the credibility of the
government's antitrafficking efforts. There were persistent allegations that
senior members of the prosecutor general's office were susceptible to outside
influence. Some observers asserted that agreements between corrupt court
officials and traffickers were also common. Unlike in previous years there were
no reports that police employees and employees of the country's international
airport assisted traffickers with transportation of victims to and through the
country.

In February the government established a task force to investigate allegations
of misconduct against an investigator in the prosecutor general's
antitrafficking unit. After a cursory investigation, the task force reported no
evidence of wrongdoing. In August a group of alleged trafficking victims,
assisted by an NGO, brought new allegations of corruption and complicity against
the same investigator and another official. A few days after the allegations
were brought to the government's attention, tax inspectors launched an
investigation into the NGO's finances (see section 4). The prosecutor general
created a task force that included members of antitrafficking NGOs to
investigate the officials, who remained in charge of the original case during
the internal investigation. The internal investigation commission found no
evidence of wrongdoing; however, the investigators were transferred out of the
antitrafficking unit, and one was demoted from senior investigator to
investigator.

Upon their return from abroad, many trafficking victims feared societal stigma
and discrimination and were reluctant to help locate and prosecute their
traffickers. Government officials did not require victims to provide such
assistance, but they worked with victims who were willing to do so. Judges did
not prosecute victims in trafficking cases for violating laws but often denied
them counsel and subjected them to humiliating treatment during trials.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the NGOs Hope and Help,
the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), and Democracy Today, operated
assistance programs for trafficking victims with funding from foreign
governments. Between March and November 14, UMCOR and Hope and Help shelters
assisted 23 victims, more than in all of 2005. The government did not offer
financial assistance but increasingly referred victims to these organizations.
The NGOs maintained two hotlines for trafficking victims.

NGOs, international organizations, and the government conducted trafficking
prevention activities, primarily educational and mass media programs to raise
public awareness. International organizations trained