Although the international community has looked favorably upon Armenia for
its economic reforms in 2004, the government has failed to improve its human
rights record. The legacy of the 2003 presidential elections, which were marred
by widespread fraud, dominates political life. An opposition boycott of
Parliament, in response to the ruling coalition’s refusal to debate a
“referendum of confidence” in President Robert Kocharian, exemplified an
increased polarization between the government and opposition. The opposition led
a broader campaign calling on President Kocharian to step down, triggering a
countrywide government crackdown. The campaign peaked in a massive, peaceful
protest on April 12, 2004, which the authorities dispersed using excessive
force. Repeating a cycle of repressive tactics from the 2003 election, the
authorities arrested opposition leaders and supporters, violently dispersed
demonstrators, raided political party headquarters, attacked journalists, and
restricted travel to prevent people from participating in demonstrations.



In response to international pressure, the government has released some
opposition leaders detained during the crackdown, and has participated in
discussions about cooperation with the opposition. The government has made
limited attempts at reforms in other areas. It set up a council to fight
corruption, a widespread, endemic problem in Armenia. Critics, including
Transparency International, dismissed the measure as ineffectual, citing the
council’s lack of independence from the executive. The judiciary remains under
the influence of the executive and torture and ill-treatment continue in places
of detention.



Freedom of Assembly

The authorities restrict the right to freedom of assembly, effectively banning
most opposition rallies. In May 2004, President Kocharian signed a new law on
public gatherings that Parliament had adopted despite criticism from the Council
of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
that the law did not comply with European human rights standards. Among other
things, the law prohibits public gatherings in numerous specific locations and
bans mass public events “for the purposes of election or referendum campaigning”
if they interfere with traffic regulations. After the law came into force, the
authorities denied the opposition permission to hold a rally in at least one
case, and permanently banned public gatherings outside the presidential
residence, the site of the April 12 protest.



Repeating a pattern established during the 2003 presidential election, the
authorities restricted travel on major roads to Yerevan when opposition rallies
were held in the capital from March to May 2004. Police set up roadblocks,
stopped cars, questioned passengers, and denied permission to travel further to
those they believed were opposition supporters.



State Violence

Torture and ill-treatment in police custody remain widespread in Armenia. In
2004, Human Rights Watch documented cases of torture of opposition supporters in
police custody. Police beat and threatened to rape the detainees, later
releasing them either without charge, or with petty charges punishable with
fines or short periods of imprisonment under the Administrative Code. No
officials were held to account for these incidents.



A dramatic low point in 2004 was the authorities’ use of excessive force to
break up the April 12 demonstration. Police and security forces violently
dispersed a peaceful crowd of about three thousand protesters who were calling
for President Kocharian’s resignation. Security forces sprayed the crowd with
water cannons and then beat protesters with batons, shocked them with electric
prods, and threw stun grenades into their midst. High-level government officials
later claimed the violence was not excessive, though no investigation was
carried out.



Security forces and unknown assailants have carried out a series of brutal
attacks on journalists who were reporting on opposition rallies. Attackers
confiscated and smashed journalists’ equipment, significantly preventing
television coverage of these events and their violent dispersal. Although there
was evidence of the identity of attackers, the authorities charged only two men,
who received a fine of less than U.S. $200, in stark contrast to the custodial
penalties imposed on opposition activists for lesser offences.



An environment of impunity for attacks against government critics continues. The
authorities failed to bring to justice the perpetrators of at least four attacks
on opposition leaders and a human rights activist in March and April 2004. On
March 30, four unknown men assaulted Mikael Danielian, a human rights defender,
punching and kicking him. Danielian spent four days in a hospital after the
attack, which he believed was aimed at stopping him from monitoring the growing
street protests by the political opposition. The General Prosecutor’s
investigation produced no results and was closed on June 1.



Arrests and Raids

As the opposition began a series of protests in late March 2004, the government
resorted to its long-established tactic of detaining potential protesters under
the Administrative Code for short periods of time for what is termed
“administrative detention.” From March to June, police detained several hundred
people, for such offences as petty hooliganism and failing to carry out a police
directive. The trials breached basic standards, including the defendant’s right
to a lawyer and to present evidence in his or her defense. Judges imposed
penalties ranging from a fine to fifteen days in prison.



On March 30, the authorities stepped up the pressure on the political
opposition, opening a criminal case against a coalition of opposition parties
and its supporters. Prosecutors charged a handful of opposition party leaders
with publicly calling for the seizure of power and publicly insulting
representatives of government, keeping them in custody for up to several months.
By September, the prosecutor general had dropped the charges and released all
the accused men. In another example of political intimidation, on the night of
April 12-13 security forces stormed the Yerevan opposition headquarters of the
Republic Party, the Nationial Unity Party, and the People’s Party, arrested
those present, and closed two of the headquarters for several days.



Media

Although Armenia has a significant independent and opposition print media, the
government continued to restrict full media freedom in the country. On April 5,
2004, the Russian television channel NTV had its broadcasting suspended
throughout the country, after broadcasting footage of opposition protests. The
official reason given for the suspension was “technical problems.” By the end of
September, NTV had not resumed broadcasting and the government had given its
broadcasting frequency to another Russian channel that does not do news
programming. In October, Kentron, a private Armenian television station,
cancelled a Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) news and analysis
program three days after it began broadcasts. RFE/RL believed that a high-level
government official had forced the cancellation. Local NGOs continue a campaign
for broadcasting rights for A1+ television, which had been a highly popular and
independent channel. The national broadcasting commission remains steadfast,
however, refusing to grant licenses to A1+ and Noyan Tapan television channels,
which were shut down in 2002 and 2001 respectively.



Freedom of Religion

There was some improvement for religious freedom in 2004 with the registration
in October of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, after a string of rejected applications.
However, despite the authorities’ promises to release all Jehovah’s Witnesses
imprisoned for refusing to perform military service, the courts continue to
impose fresh prison terms. In September, according to the Armenian Helsinki
Association, eight Jehovah’s Witnesses were serving prison terms for their
refusal to perform military service, and a further eight, five of whom were in
custody, were awaiting trial for the same offences.



Key International Actors

The U.S. appears to be gaining influence in Armenia, which traditionally has
looked to Russia for military and economic ties. The U.S. increased military aid
and cooperation and, after initially refusing to involve itself, in 2004 Armenia
agreed to send a small contingent of non-combatant military personnel to Iraq.
The U.S. also designated Armenia as one of sixteen countries to be eligible for
a multi-million dollar aid program called the Millennium Challenge Account. The
U.S. stated that the flow of money was dependent on improvements in Armenia’s
human rights record.



The Council of Europe effectively engaged Armenia to roll back some of the
government’s more authoritarian practices in 2004. The council continued its
scrutiny of Armenia’s post-accession obligations, noting progress in complying
with some commitments, such as abolition of the death penalty, while expressing
disappointment in other areas, such as the conduct of the 2003 elections. In
April, the council’s Parliamentary Assembly passed a resolution under an urgent
procedure, expressing concern about the government crackdown against opposition
supporters that month. Armenia responded by releasing the opposition supporters
who were in custody on criminal charges and dropping the charges against many of
them.



In September 2004, the European Union and Armenia met under the framework of the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Unfortunately, the E.U. failed to use
this forum publicly to encourage human rights improvements, issuing a press
release that did not raise human rights concerns. In a step that could increase
the ability of the E.U. to influence Armenia on human rights, it included
Armenia in its European Neighborhood Policy, giving privileged ties with the
bloc. Officials warned that economic benefits would not flow until at least
2007, when Armenia will have to have negotiated action plans on economic and
political reforms.