Armenia’s judicial system is facing scrutiny from human rights advocates, who
assert that executive authorities continue to exert undue influence over judges.
Some non-governmental organization activists are exploring ways to promote a
greater degree of judicial independence by making it more difficult for
authorities to detain citizens.



The lack of the judicial system’s independence is rooted in Armenia’s
post-Soviet constitution, which states that the president is "the guarantor of
the independence of the judicial bodies." Such language, in effect, gives the
president the ability to appoint and dismiss virtually all judges at will.
Conversely, the constitutional provision effectively intimidates judges into
making decisions designed to please incumbent executive branch officials, rights
advocates say.



Research conducted in 2002 by the American Bar Association’s Central and East
European Law Initiative rated Armenia negatively on 18 out of the 30 indicators
that comprise its Judicial Reform Index (JRI) for formerly Communist nations.
Eight of the 12 remaining criteria in Armenia’s JRI were rated as "neutral."
Among the negative categories were "judicial qualification and preparation,"
"selection and appointment process," "adequacy of judicial salaries" and
"judicial decisions and improper influence."



In comparing Armenia’s performance with other CIS states, the JRI for Ukraine
gave a negative grade for 12 of the 30 reform criteria. A newly published report
on Kyrgyzstan, meanwhile, gave negative evaluations in 19 of the 30 categories.



"Bribery is a common problem, caused ... by low judicial salaries, mistrust of
the judicial system and historical practice," the Armenia JRI stated. "Judges
often get telephone calls from officials, parties and ‘intermediaries’ in an
attempt to influence their decision."



"One lawyer stated that an appellate judge told him directly that he could not
resist the opposing pressure to decide [the case in question] a certain way for
fear of jeopardizing his professional future," the report added.



Opposition protests over alleged vote fraud during the presidential election in
2003 underscored the judiciary’s apparent susceptibility to executive pressure.
[For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. A police crackdown
on supporters of incumbent President Robert Kocharian’s main challenger, Stepan
Demirchian resulted in up to 400 arrests. Many of the opposition detainees were
sentenced to up 15 days in prison on administrative charges for participating in
unsanctioned demonstrations. While in jail, most opposition activists were
denied access to lawyers and faced closed trials in breach of Armenian law.



The post-election crackdown, which was denounced by the Council of Europe and
other international organizations, was carried out under the auspices of
Armenia’s Code for Administrative Offenses, a Soviet-era relic that enables
security agencies to briefly jail people without probable cause. Human rights
activists allege that the administrative code has often been manipulated by
authorities to keep suspects in custody while cases against them are
manufactured. According to Avetik Ishkhanian of the Armenian Helsinki Committee,
courts, in such instances, merely act as "notaries," effectively recording the
cases brought by police.



Human rights activists say one way to check executive influence over the
judiciary is to raise the standards by which prosecutors can detain suspects
prior to trial. Existing laws and regulations, along with compliant judges, now
make it easy to keep suspects in jail. Official figures revealed, compiled by a
local NGO, tell the story: Armenian courts granted almost 97 percent of the
5,116 requests for pre-trial detention filed by state prosecutors in 2003. In
the vast majority of these cases, rights activists contend, prosecutors did not
present evidence or make legal justifications in their detention requests.



Ishkhanian, the Helsinki Committee activist, said that keeping suspects in
prison in Armenia is conducive to injustice and human rights abuses. "It is
always easier to extract confessions from detainees than from those who are at
large," he told EurasiaNet in an interview. "Law-enforcement bodies here
continue to operate under old methods."



The pre-trial detention issue is currently the subject of in-depth study by a
Yerevan-based NGO, the Civil Society Institute (CSI). The organization is
examining detention centers across the country, interviewing judges,
law-enforcement officials and lawyers. The study began in September 2003. The
group is already lobbying for the passage of legal changes that would establish
tougher requirements for arrest and detention.



"There are practically no justifications in arrest petitions submitted by
investigators," says CSI lawyer Narine Rshtuni. "Nor do they seek to prove that
a particular individual will escape trial or obstruct the investigation."



Hrach Sarkisian, chairman of the Armenian Union of Judges, defended the
judiciary’s independence, claiming that most magistrates do not bow to pressure
from prosecutors or executive officials. He blamed existing problems on
shortcomings in the law, specifically the framework for pre-trial detentions
that allows for detention without the presentation of evidence of any misdeed.
Contradicting Sarkisian’s claims, one judge quoted by a preliminary CSI study
says: "The courts will do a better job if the judges get real independence. If
the judges were independent 30 or 40 percent of arrest petitions would not be
approved."



CSI chairman, Artak Kirakosian, expressed hope that Kocharian’s administration
will be receptive to reforming the country’s Code for Procedural Justice along
the lines recommended by the NGO. Kirakosian pointed out that Armenia’s Council
of Europe membership obligations required further efforts to reform the
judiciary. Other activists, including Ishkhanian, are more skeptical, believing
that Kocharian wants to retain his administration’s influence over the
judiciary. "This [promoting an independent judiciary], as well as free
elections, is something that Armenian authorities will never do," Ishkhanian
said. "Any judicial reform will be cosmetic. I’m quite pessimistic on this
issue."



Emil Danielyan