During 2013 “Civil Society Institute” NGO
focused its attention on the conditions of detention of convicted persons and
the issue of bringing torturers to criminal responsibility. 

In July, 2013, the Human Rights Defender of
Armenia in the framework of the National Preventive Mechanism published the
midterm Report on the conditions of detention in penitentiary
institutions (PI) of Armenia and rights of convicted persons.

According to the Report, the problem of
overcrowding of penitentiary institutions continues to be the biggest one in
the field. The Report mentions that under current conditions the service by the
inmates of their term takes form of degrading punishment, which seriously impedes
correction and rehabilitation of person. In addition significant reduction in
personal space boundaries provokes the increase in outbursts of violence and
aggression. The Defender also mentioned that the system may collapse, since such
factors as shortcomings of the judiciary, of the system of the revision of
punishment and social apathy are added to the existing bad conditions of
detention.

According to the Report the problem of overpopulation
is common to almost every penitentiary of Armenia, however “Noubarashen” PI stands
out among the rest for its most severe conditions of detention. Taking into
account the ECtHR’s case law, The Human Rights Defender equated these
conditions to inhuman and degrading treatment. “Noubarashen” facility has a
capacity of 840 inmates but according to the current monitoring data 1184
convicts are registered there. The 25 square meter cells are inhabited by 17
persons, whereas the number of beds is limited to 10-12 and inmates are forced
to take turns sleeping. It is noteworthy that even in “Noubarashen” PI with
such harsh conditions of detention the expert commission of the Office of the
Human Rights Defender registered a number of cells with lesser number of
convicts, among whom were crime bosses, informal prison leaders, ex state
officials.

Notwithstanding numerous statements of Vladimir
Vardanyan, the Head of Police of the Republic of Armenia, that violence and
torture are excluded from police practice, in 2013 the instances of torture and
ill-treatment in police system were still registered.

According to the opinion of Arman Danielyan, the
President of the “Civil Society Institute” and a member of the UN Subcommittee
on the Prevention of Torture, Armenian policeman tortures, as he is not capable
to use other means to solve a crime.

Arman Danielyan is sure that the torture
practices blocks professional growth of police stuff, since there is no need to
be a professional law-abiding police officer when torture is the fastest and
most productive way to investigate and solve more crimes; and it is not clear
from these “solved” crimes what is the percentage of the cases which are truly
solved.

The practices of torture also impede the proper
functioning of judicial system. Even when accused persons state at court that self-incriminatory
evidence given at the stage of pretrial investigation was obtained through
torture, in most of the cases courts without proper investigation do not
consider them to be reliable, treat them as a manoeuvre to avoid responsibility and base the verdict on the initial self-incriminatory
evidence. Such approach thickens the atmosphere of impunity in the police
system.

It must be noted, nevertheless, that in 2013
there was registered a minor positive development in the context of bringing
torturers to responsibility and punishment. In 2013 there was a court decision
based on the established fact of torture. I am referring to the case of Khachik
Bakhbudaryan and Artak Barseghyan, two torturers of Robert Hovsepyan. On
October 11, 2013, after several months of court proceedings the Court of
General Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts chaired
by Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan sentenced the two policemen from the Central
Police Department of Yerevan city, Artak Barseghyan and Khachik Bakhbudaryan,
to 3 years in prison for violence committed with the aim of extracting
self-incriminatory confession. They were charged with the offences provided in
Article 309(2) of the Armenian Criminal Code, i.e. exceeding official authority
committed with use of violence and Article 314 - Official Forgery.

However, the excitement of the anti-torture
militants didn’t last long, since the court applied recent amnesty decision to
the torturers and they were released from the courtroom. In relation to that
CSI issued a statement and reminded Armenian authorities that according to the
ECtHR’s position it is unacceptable to include torturers into amnesties.
Despite this, not taking into account that it was a clear violation of the
principles established by ECtHR’s case law the Office of Prosecutor General of
Armenia didn’t even appealed against this decision, considering it to be
reasoned and lawful. Meanwhile such practice also contributes to the
strengthening of the atmosphere of impunity.

It can be marked as a positive development in
the context of bringing to responsibility for torture that ECtHR in its
February 1, 2013 final decision ruled in favor of the applicant in Grisha Virabyan vs. Armenia complaint
and registered several violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court established the fact, that Mr. Virabyan was tortured, unlawfully
deprived of liberty and that in relation to him the principle of presumption of
innocence was violated. By this decision ECtHR declared that Armenia violated
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in both material and
procedural aspects and obliged Armenia to pay Mr. Virabyan 31.000 EUR. Major
part of this sum is compensation for moral harm.

In April 2013 the appointment of Ashot Karapetyan,
the Head of the Department of Criminal Investigation, to the position of the
Head of the Police of Yerevan made quite a stir in the context of the fight
against torture. Not just once the latter’s name came up while on the subject
of the beatings and violence occurred in police system. Moreover, in Grisha Virabyan vs. Armenia case the A.K. initials used to denote the policeman
who tortured the applicant were identical to Ashot Karapetyan’s initials. This
circumstance as well as Mr. Virabyan’s direct accusations against Ashot
Karapetyan give rise to certain concerns…

On November 27, 2013, Ashot Karapetyan’s name
was also mentioned at the hearing of the Court of General Jurisdiction of
Shirak region. During the court proceedings Harutyun Sargsyan stated that Ashot
Karapetyan, the Head of the Police of Yerevan, and Karen Babakekhyan, the Head
of Police of Shirak region, subjected him to torture and degrading treatment
and told the court how they beat him. Only after a long fight and in
consequence of appeals Lusine Sahakyan, the lawyer of Harutyun Sargsyan, reached
certain results and a criminal case on the basis of Mr. Sargsyan’s statement
about beatings was opened.

In 2013 there were no steps undertaken towards the
harmonization of the definition of torture given by the Armenian Criminal Code
with the requirements of the UN Convention against Torture. Armenia has joined
the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment as far back as 1993. It’s been 20 years that Article
119 of the Armenian Criminal code providing elements of crime of torture has
been not in line with the elements provided in Article 1 of the UN Convention
against Torture.

The criminal conduct envisaged by the UN
Convention is criminalized in Armenia in a very fragmented way and is being only
partially reflected in a number of the articles of the Armenian Criminal Code,
as, for instance, in Articles 309(2) and 341.

The Armenian Criminal Code is criminalizing torture
only in the cases of coercing by mean of torture to make testimony or desired
conclusion in the course of criminal proceedings thus leaving out all the other
possible cases of torture in the meaning of the UN Convention committed with a
special intent by a public official or with his/her consent/acquiescence. This
includes torture in penitentiaries, in army, during public gatherings (for
instance, incidents between a policemen and a protester) etc.