On March 13, 2013 Study on Ill-treatment and
Torture against Juveniles in the Republic of Armenia has been presented in
Yerevan

“Civil Society Institute” NGO expert, co-author
of the study Tatevik Gharibyan presented the current issues in the legislation on
torture.

Article 17 of the Armenian Constitution prescribes
that “No one shall be subjected to torture
or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. While Article 119 of
the Criminal Code of Armenia defines that torture
is any action through which a severe pain or physical or mental suffering is
intentionally caused to a person, where it has not resulted in consequences
provided for in Article 112 and 113 of the Criminal Code (harm of utmost or
medium gravity intentionally caused to person’s health). Such act is punishable
by imprisonment for up to 3 years, and in case of aggravated circumstances,
which, inter alia, includes those committed in relation to a minor, are
punished by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years.

According to Tatevik Gharibyan, the definition of
torture used in the Criminal Code does not comply with the definition provided
in the UN Convention against Torture.

“Article 119 does not include harm of medium or
upmost gravity intentionally caused to person’s health, does not include
elements of specific purpose and specific actor, does not restrict torture to
acts undertaken by state agents, and it is generally applied in the context of
horizontal relations between two citizens, without any involvement of state
agents. Besides, concerns are raised with the fact that in our legislation in
case of instituting a criminal case on the basis of private prosecution, the
criminal case is closed if reconciliation between the victim and the
perpetrator (suspect, the accused or the defendant) of the crime is achieved”,
according to the expert, this is the main discrepancies between our legislation
and the UN Convention.

Tatevik Gharibyan also presented the official
statistics, according to which for the period of 2010-2011 nobody was convicted
under Article 119 for torture and/or ill-treatment towards a juvenile. In 2011 there were 3 convictions of
adults where victims were also adults. 2 people out of 3 convicted were
released following adoption of the amnesty decision.

According to Tatevik Gharibyan, the definition
provided by the law does not comply with UN Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Article 341(2) of the Criminal Code stipulates
that “a judge, prosecutor, investigator or person carrying out an inquest, who
uses torture or other violence to compel a witness, suspect, accused, person on
trial or victim to testify, or to compel an expert to issue a false opinion, or
a translator to provide an incorrect translation, is punishable with three to
eight years imprisonment.”

According to the expert’s observations, this
Article does not include severe pain or suffering inflicted by an investigator
or a police officer with the purpose of extracting testimony from a person who
does not have any legal status or to obtain an explanation or information which
is a legislative gap. According to the official statistics, there was no
conviction under this Article for the period of 2010-2012 either.

No conviction was made under Article 308 (abuse
of powers) and Article 309 (exceeding powers) with relation to ill-treatment or
torture towards a juvenile for the same period.

According to Tatevik Gharibyan, the Armenian
legislation on treatment of arrestees and detainees contains some provisions
which are not compliant with the international standards. Particularly, juvenile
remand prisoner may be kept in solitary confinement for five days and convicted
juvenile can be kept there for ten days which does not comply with the United
Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. Rule
67 provides that “all disciplinary measures constituting cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited, including corporal punishment,
placement in a dark cell, closed or solitary confinement or any other
punishment that may compromise the physical or mental health of the juvenile
concerned”.

The study demonstrates that cruel treatment towards
juveniles mainly occurred in the police stations during the apprehension and
interrogation with the purpose to extort testimony and confession. The most
common form of ill-treatment is beating. According to the expert, it is harder
to reveal the cases of degrading treatment (cursing, shouting, exerting
psychological pressure, threats, and humiliation.). 

 “The interviews conducted within the frames of the
study demonstrated that there was a certain regularity in application of
torture: physical violence is mostly applied towards juveniles who show
aggressive or stubborn behavior while towards more tranquil children
psychological pressure and threats are applied”, says Tatevik Gharibyan.

According to her, one of the safeguards against
torture and ill-treatment is the mandatory involvement of a defense attorney
and participation of the juvenile’s legal representative during the
interrogations of a juvenile.

“However the practice shows that juveniles are
often summoned to the police to give explanations without obtaining any legal
status. While the involvement of a defense counsel in an interrogation of a juvenile
suspect or accused juvenile is mandatory and the testimony given in the absence
of a defense counsel is considered inadmissible evidence. 60 % of respondents
talked with the police officers in the absence of a defense attorney”,-
highlighted the lawyer.

According to her observations, statements of
torture and ill-treatment were not properly investigated. “Verification of the
majority of torture allegations is carried out by police investigators and the
allegations are mainly considered as non-reliable. The forensic examination may
be assigned only by an investigator or a prosecutor. There are cases when alleged
victims report the case quite late, so it is not possible to prove application
of torture as traces of violence disappear.”

The authors of the report
suggest that the torture victim and his/her defense attorney also obtain the
right to apply for forensic examination directly to the forensic expert. 

Study on Ill-Treatment and Torture against Juveniles in the Republic of
Armenia in Armenian and English.