In Armenia torture is considered a negative work style inherited from the past and a result of impunity of the present. Everyone accepts that it is a negative phenomenon and partially agrees that it exists in certain public bodies. Everyone fights against torture but no one gets appropriate punishment.

The concept of "torture" means any action by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession from him or a third person: this is defined by article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

According to attorney Hayk Alumyan, though legislation allows defining appropriate punishment for torture, the judicial system is not independent enough to recognized "torture".

Article 119 of the RA Criminal Code specifies a punishment of maximum 7 years of imprisonment for torture.

Armenian courts prefer to apply mainly article 375 of the RA Criminal Code that refers not to torture but to abuse of authority or administrative dereliction. Though the punishment by this article is maximum 13 years, mainly the minimum punishment - 2 years of imprisonment, is applied.

Lawyer Artak Zeynalyan, who has lost the count of cases he sent to the European Court on article 3 of the European Convention (torture) "On Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms", says that one of the reasons of the present situation is that the mechanism of the Soviet Union has still survived in Armenia.

Zeynalyan also tells about the method that is widespread in Armenia: to make someone confess in some crime, members of his family are brought to police and are kept there with threats of using inhuman methods against them due to which the above person gives self-confessing testimony.

"Reports on torture are examined by the same person who is suspected in inflicting torture or who is charged with the complaint. I think these should be separate proceedings, and the judge should not consider the evidence that has been obtained by violating law; they should not be included in the case. It should be examined by an absolutely different court, and if the court decides that evidence has been obtained by violating law, it should be excluded from the case, and the court examining the main case should not even be aware of it", Zeynalyan says. "There is a principle - one can't silence the bell that has rung". If the fact has been obtained by violating the law it should not affect judge's inner conviction," Zeynalyan says that every year he has at least two cases related to torture.

After conducting monitoring, NGOs active in protection of human rights announce that cases of torture mainly occur in the RA police before moving the detained person to the places for keeping the detained (PKD) and mainly for obtaining self-confessing testimony. What happened with Stepan Hovakimyan is one of such cases: Hovakimyan accuses the Prosecutor General's office and the police for not conducting effective investigation for the fact of torture. Since the RA Special Investigation Service delayed Hovakimyan's interrogation, did not conduct appropriate forensic-medical expertise, later during the internal investigation the policemen rejected what Hovakimyan stated. Based on that, the Prosecutor's office refused to instigate proceedings for the report on torture. 

Often such torture results in death, e.g. Vahan Khalafyan died at Charentsavan Police, and Levon Gulyan died at Yerevan Police.

Attorneys think that courts do not confirm cases of torture since they do not want to confront with the police and prosecutor's office, and if judges make mistakes they prefer them to be in favor of prosecutor's office.

"A striking example of the above is what happened recently at the Avan and Nor Nork administrative regions' general jurisdiction court where judge Samvel Mnatsakanyan due to such confrontation was deprived of his authorities. Though we had a case at the European Court, in which the judge who gave the rough definition "torture was used to reveal the truth" was subjected to light penalty after the European Court verdict, and the Courts of Appeal and Cassation that upheld the decision were not punished at all," says attorney Hayk Alumyan who remembers 5 cases in 15 years that included obvious torture and the court did not consider those circumstances. 

Ashot Aharonyan, head of the RA police public relations department, neither confirmed nor rejected facts of torture in police; he only mentioned that they fight against it.

"Since January 1, 2011 the RA Police Inner Security Department has received 5 complaints from citizens claiming they were subjected to violence or torture by police officers. The inner investigation has revealed that in 2 cases the claims were not substantiated; in 3 cases their proceeding were stopped until the end of the preliminary investigation of the criminal cases instigated before that and before the trial," Aharonyan said. 

A week ago Aghasi Kirakosyan, head of the RA Police Public Order Maintenance Department, said there was no torture at PKDs (situated in the police).

Karine Ionesyan

Source - www.hra.am