Document Coversheet
Submitted by: Ariella Puterman
Jurisdiction: Armenia
Document title: Ombudsman Annual report
Date of Document (this should be the last day of your research): 2004
Document number (e.g., 42 USC 1982 – omit punctuation and symbols):
Document type (e.g., statute, case, rule, article, questionnaire response): report
Document description (a few words describing the contents of the document):
Filename (if this is an electronic document): Armenia_ombudsman_report_2004_English
Language(s) contained in document: English
If this is a PDF submitted electronically and only a portion of the document is needed, specify which pages: (here, “pages” refers to the exogenous page numbers assigned by Acrobat and not the pages printed in the text.)
____________________________________________
To be completed by bursary student:
Date processed:
Filename (if not specified above):
ANNUAL REPORT
ACTIVITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA’S
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER, AND ON VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
IN ARMENIA DURING 2004
YEREVAN 2004
About the Report
Under Article 17 of the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender, the Human Rights Defender (hereinafter, the “Defender”) shall, during the first quarter of each year, present a report on her activities and on violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country during the preceding year.
The first report of the Defender covers the year 2004.
Assessments, conclusions, and recommendations made herein are based on letters of aggrieved persons, as well as investigations and monitoring carried out by the Defender proprio motu. Such investigations mainly targeted cases that generated broad public attention—most often based on the media or other leads (from private individuals, NGOs, CSOs, public agencies, and international organizations).
The Report singles out cases dealt with by the Defender with the aim of reinstating rights of women, children, refugees, the disabled, internally displaces persons (IDPs), and other vulnerable and special groups. The analysis has covered areas such as the development of international links, collaboration with NGOs, dissemination of information, legal counseling, and the like.
Being the first, this Report does not aspire to cover all possible violations of human rights in the country, especially because the 10-month period in question is too short for such coverage.
The assessments in this Report do not necessarily coincide with the views of certain groups of society.
Nevertheless, they testify to the fact that the Republic of Armenia—as a nation whose history dates back thousands of years—has irreversibly chosen to construct a democratic, social, and legal state, as confirmed by, among other things, the institutionalization of the Human Rights Defender.
CONTENTS
|
Preface |
5 |
|
1. Information on the Human Rights Defender Institution |
6 |
|
1.1 Creation |
6 |
|
1.2 Goals and Objectives |
7 |
|
1.3 Structure |
8 |
|
2. Priority Areas |
10 |
|
2.1. Collaboration with Central and Local Government Agencies |
10 |
|
2.2. Collaboration with NGOs |
11 |
|
2.3. Awareness and Public Relations |
11 |
|
2.4. International Cooperation |
12 |
|
2.5. Own Initiatives |
14 |
|
2.6. Rapid Response |
15 |
|
2.7. Workshops |
16 |
|
2.8. Expert Council |
16 |
|
2.9. Handling Complaints |
17 |
|
2.9.1. Complaint Statistics |
17 |
|
2.9.2. Progress and Results |
19 |
|
3. Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Armenia |
24 |
|
3.1. Right to Life |
24 |
|
3.2. Right to Freedom and Immunity |
26 |
|
3.3. Right to Be Free from Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment |
26 |
|
3.4. Right to Freedom of Movement |
28 |
|
3.5. Right to Conduct Meetings, Gatherings, Rallies, and Protests |
29 |
|
3.6. Right to Form and Join Associations |
30 |
|
3.7. Right to Fair Trial and Judicial Protection |
31 |
|
3.8. Presumption of Innocence |
34 |
|
3.9. Right to Legal Aid and Counsel |
34 |
|
3.10. Inadmissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence |
36 |
|
3.11. Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion |
36 |
|
3.12. Freedom of Expression and Right to Seek, Receive, and Impart Information |
38 |
|
3.13. Suffrage Rights |
39 |
|
3.14. Right to Privacy and Immunity of Home |
39 |
|
3.15. Rights of National Minorities |
40 |
|
3.16. Equal Rights for Women |
41 |
|
3.17. Right to Protection of Children |
41 |
|
3.18. Right to Ownership and Other Economic Rights |
43 |
|
3.19. Right to Education |
48 |
|
3.20. Cultural Rights and Copyrights |
49 |
|
3.21. Right to Social Protection |
50 |
|
3.22. Rights of Special and Vulnerable Groups |
57 |
|
3.22.1. The Disabled |
57 |
|
3.22.2. Refugees |
58 |
|
3.22.3. The Homeless |
59 |
|
3.23. Other Rights |
60 |
|
3.23.1. Environment |
60 |
|
3.23.2. Consumer Rights |
61 |
|
3.23.3. Right to Rest |
64 |
|
4. Need for Legislative Reform |
66 |
|
4.1. Republic of Armenia Law on Human Rights Defender |
66 |
|
4.2. Related Laws |
67 |
|
4.3. Republic of Armenia Law on State Pensions |
70 |
|
4.4. Laws on the Disabled and Vulnerable Groups of Society |
70 |
|
4.5. Republic of Armenia Law on Social Security of Servicemen and Their Families |
71 |
|
4.6. Republic of Armenia Law on Refugees and Law on Citizenship |
71 |
|
5. Avenues for Further Development of the Human Rights Defender’s Institution |
72 |
|
6. Appendices |
74 |
|
Appendix 1. Biographies of Human Rights Defender and Deputy Defender |
75 |
|
Appendix 2. Human Rights Protection in the Field of Employment |
77 |
|
Appendix 3. Protection of Women’s Rights in the Republic of Armenia |
84 |
|
Appendix 4. Protection of Children’s Rights in the Republic of Armenia |
90 |
Preface
Humanity has, at all times, confronted the need to exert efforts to uphold universal values, such as human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is a political, civic, and societal challenge for any generation.
The national system for human
rights protection is currently emerging on the basis of the “Paris Principles
Relating to the Status and Functioning of National
Institutions for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights” (Paris Principles).
Such a system should, first of all, be independent of the authorities and have
its mandate enshrined in the Constitution and laws of the state, affirmed by
safeguards for its performance and publicity of its activities.
In the Republic of Armenia, the Human Rights Defender institution was founded in accordance with the Paris Principles. As evils such as local and international terrorism, social polarization, and trafficking become widespread, making people more vulnerable and increasing the need for permanent legal protection, the role of national institutions for the protection of human rights, including the Armenian Human Rights Defender, has become more important than ever before.
The main principles underlying the Armenian Defender’s activities are independence, impartiality, fairness, and credibility of investigations into allegations of human rights violations. There is hope that in a culture of dialogue and enhanced civic and social accountability, efforts aimed at strengthening tolerance will promote human rights protection in Armenia.
To counter human rights violations caused by abuses of official positions, poor administration, and the adoption of sub-legislation conflicting with the Constitution and laws, enhanced legal practices and improved legal awareness are essential in instilling confidence and faith in the safeguards of human rights protection in Armenia.
Larisa Alaverdyan
Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia
1. INFORMATION ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER INSTITUTION
1.1. Creation
Economic, political, social, cultural, and international legal challenges encountered by the Republic of Armenia on the constitutional path towards democracy and the rule of law must be overcome by enhancing legality and promoting human and citizen’s rights and freedoms.
In order for such challenges to be addressed successfully, social justice must prevail. The ideological aspirations of law-enforcement activities and the focus on governmental interests must be eliminated; and public and private interests must enjoy equal protection.
Success in these areas will be contingent upon the effective separation of powers and a functioning system of checks and balances. In this context, the Human Rights Defender (a.k.a. Ombudsman), as a standalone institution, has a unique yet duty-bound role. To protect human rights against arbitrary actions by the state, the Defender’s institution must have an independent standing within the hierarchy of the state, free from the authorities and above any political, ideological, or pecuniary interests.
The Ombudsman’s institution was created on the basis of law that defines the procedure for the Ombudsman’s selection. As a rule, an Ombudsman is elected by the parliament of a country. This procedure is prescribed under Article 3(2) of the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender for electing the Armenian Ombudsman.
The Constitution of Armenia does not provide for a Human Rights Defender, but the constitutional grounds for creating the Human Rights Defender institution are beyond any doubt. Article 4 of the Constitution, for instance, provides that the state shall ensure protection of human rights and freedoms on the basis of the Constitution and the laws, in accordance with the principles of international law.
Pending constitutional reforms, which will introduce provisions into the Constitution on the appointment of the Defender, Article 27(2) of the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender, which lays down the transitional provisions, defines the procedure by which the President of Armenia consulted with the various groups and factions in the National Assembly. Based on this, the President issued Decree 23-A of February 19, 2004, which appointed Larisa Alaverdyan as the Human Rights Defender for Armenia.
The safeguards of the Defender’s independence are enshrined in the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender. Article 5 of this law provides that the Defender shall not be subordinate to any central or local government body or official. The Defender is not obligated to give any explanation or testify on the substance of complaints or documents received by the Defender, or to make them available in any way, except as provided by law.
As a crucial safeguard of the Defender’s independence, this law prescribes the Defender’s immunity (Article 19) and an exhaustive list of cases in which the Defender may be removed from office before expiration of the term (Article 5).
Article 2 is rather important because it refers to the Defender as “an autonomous and independent official.” The legislature does not treat or refer to the Defender as a “state official.”
Articles 23 and 25 of this law lay down essential safeguards for the Defender’s independence, including rights to recruit and manage the Defender’s staff.
After assuming office on March 1, 2004, the Defender proceeded accordingly to form her staff, of which she is directly in charge and has the power to approve the structure and by-laws of the staff.
Forming a staff of 35 positions, the Defender recruited young specialists, representatives of national minorities and those deported from Azerbaijan, as well as individuals with disabilities, trying to ensure even representation of different groups. More than half of the Defender’s staff are women. National minorities are approximately 10 percent.
1.2. Goals and Objectives
From its very inception, the Defender’s institution has focused on protecting and restoring human rights and fundamental freedoms violated by central and local governments and their officials, implementing safeguards for the state to protect human and citizens’ rights and fundamental freedoms, and promoting respect for such rights and freedoms on the part of central and local governments, their officials, and public servants.
With a view to attaining these goals, the institution has been active in the following areas:
o Enhancing legal protection of humans by improving law-enforcement practices;
o Supporting improvements in legislation on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and harmonization of Armenian legislation with universal principles of international law;
o Initiating a process of constructive cooperation between the Defender and the authorities, between the Defender and the public, and facilitating the development of such cooperation;
o Fostering the development of international cooperation in the sphere of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
o Promoting access to the system for protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
o Facilitating increased awareness of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the forms and methods of their protection; and
o Ensuring transparency and accountability in, and regularly and widely disseminating information on, the Defender’s activities.
In order to achieve the aforementioned goals and objectives, the Defender has reviewed the allegations of human rights violations, paid visits to institutions where vulnerable groups are located (orphanages, homes for the elderly, psychiatric hospitals, prisons, etc.), and identified, investigated, and, to the extent possible, addressed violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of those who were unable to attain protection and redress by legal means. The Defender has also provided legal advice in Yerevan and the regions, publicized cases in which human rights violations were successfully remedied, analyzed and summarized human rights violations and presented conclusions and recommendations to the respective authorities. Furthermore, the Defender has raised public awareness of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, prepared and presented materials and reports initiated by the Defender proprio motu and/or on the basis of law, and studied and applied the international experience of similar institutions.
The following principles have guided the Defender’s activities in the aforementioned areas:
o Establishing constructive relations with public agencies;
o Starting case review with “soft” methods and intensifying them gradually if encountering resistance to the provision of remedies;
o Principle of “supplementarity”, i.e. undertaking measures aimed at supplementing human rights protection arrangements prescribed by law;
o Favoring preventive measures for the protection of human rights;
o Making recommendations to the appropriate bodies and agencies on the basis of human rights violation cases reviewed by the Defender; and
o Establishing partnerships with civil society.
1.3. Structure
The Defender has developed the institution’s staff and has coordinated activities and priorities through the following units:
o Secretariat;
o Division for Citizens’ Reception and Letters;
o Human Rights Protection and Remedy Teams;
o Resource Center;
o Rapid Response Team;
o Information and Public Relations Team;
o International Collaboration Team; and
o Logistics Service.
The Secretariat is comprised of the Staff Secretary, two Advisors to the Defender, the Assistants to the Defender and to the Deputy Defender, and the Defender’s Referent. They coordinate collaboration with various public agencies, different groups of society, and international organizations. They also develop staff training programs, and facilitate the activities of the Defender and the Deputy Defender.
The Division for Citizens’ Receptions and Letters holds meetings with citizens and provides legal counseling, receives complaints, performs early processing, registration, and analysis of complaints, organizes meetings of citizens with the Defender or Deputy Defender, and carries out general administrative functions. At present, this division uses computer software for registering and summarizing complaints. This software was developed and implemented by Armenian specialists on the basis of a needs assessment performed by the staff.
The Human Rights Protection and Remedy Teams provide free legal advice to those who apply to the Defender’s staff. Moreover, the Employment, Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights and Civil Servants’ and Special and Vulnerable Groups’ Rights Remedy Team, as well as the Criminal Procedural, Penitentiary, and Military Servicemen’s Rights Remedy Team, and the Property Rights Remedy Team investigate allegations of violations concerning rights in their respective areas. Experts who work in these teams take part in the Rapid Response Team visits and make legal evaluations of human rights violations identified in the course of such visits.
The Resource Center staff analyzes laws and draft legislation and makes recommendations in order to facilitate improvements of the human rights legislation so that Armenian legislation is in line with universal principles of international law. The members analyze and summarize measures taken regarding complaints and prepare the Defender’s annual and other reports, statements, and appeals.
The Rapid Response Team engages in rapid response, investigates allegations of human rights violations in the field (in hospitals, orphanages, homes for the elderly, detention institutions, pre-trial detention facilities, courts, prosecution offices, police stations, communities, and central or local governments), and monitors court sessions, if necessary.
The Information and Public Relations Team ensures mass media coverage of the Defender’s activities, develops and implements measures to raise awareness of the public and the international community on activities of the Defender and her staff. This team also publishes information materials on human rights, and investigates mass media allegations and leads concerning human rights violations, which can trigger proprio motu initiatives by the Defender.
The International Collaboration Team facilitates the creation and development of international links to help ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well asl undertaking joint projects with international organizations, and ensures:
o Links between the Defender’s staff and similar international institutions;
o Participation of the Defender and the staff in various events held by international organizations; and
o Analysis of reports and other materials prepared by inter-governmental and international human rights organizations.
The Logistics staff helps to support the efficient operation of the Defender, the Deputy Defender, and the staff.
2. PRIORITY AREAS
2.1. Collaboration with Central and Local Government Agencies
Experience has shown that positive collaboration with central and local government agencies in the field of human rights protection enables the Defender to address allegations and complaints quickly and effectively.
The Defender’s institution collaborates with the National Assembly and the Government of the Republic of Armenia by participating in discussions held by the National Assembly committees and issuing opinions on the respective issues. As for the Government, the Defender or Deputy Defender are always present in the sessions of the Government.
There is still no binding requirement to obtain the Defender’s opinion on the impact of draft laws on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The groundwork has been laid for collaboration with the respective ministries and public agencies.
In view of the close engagement of police authorities in the protection of citizens’ rights and fundamental freedoms, the Defender’s institution has entered into a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Armenian Police, which contemplates information sharing on matters of mutual interest and the rapid response of the Police to the Defender’s comments and suggestions.
The foundations for sustainable collaboration with the Prosecution of Armenia and the Cassation Court have been laid through meetings and consultation on issues of common interest. The Cassation Court Chairman has expressed willingness to discuss the Defender’s recommendations on court session monitoring and complaints against courts in the Council of Court Chairmen. A proposal has already been made to the Cassation Court Chairman.
Despite a number of meetings and discussions with the staff of the Yerevan Mayor’s Office, the collaboration that exists to date can hardly be deemed efficient. There are a large number of complaints against the Mayor’s Office concerning urban land disposal, alienation of private assets for state needs, compensation for apartments demolished by the state, and other allegations that raise human rights concerns. There are serious delays in addressing these matters or restoring the violated rights. In some cases they unreasonably disagree with the Defender’s suggestions. Nevertheless, the Defender is constantly seeking new ways of collaborating with the Mayor’s Office.
Collaboration with the State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre and the Judicial Enforcement Department can be considered as inadequate, though these agencies have intervened to provide solutions to a number of complaints raised.
Collaboration is rather efficient with Governors and town and village mayors in the regions. In a number of regions, the Governors and mayors have expressed willingness to support the establishment of a representative office of the Defender in their respective regions.
All the village mayors with whom the Defender or the staff have dealt are ready to engage in close collaboration to raise the legal and legislative awareness of their community residents. Owing to such collaboration, a considerable number of complaints have been addressed positively at the initial stages of the investigation.
In order to further enhance performance, the Defender attaches high importance to strengthening collaboration with central and local government agencies.
2.2. Collaboration with NGOs
The Defender highly appreciates the experience and reputation of non-governmental organizations and considers collaboration with NGOs an important tool. This is why the Defender has regular meetings with NGO representatives whenever she visits the regions. In order for the Defender’s meetings with citizens in the regions to be sincere and unimpeded, the Defender’s meetings with the affected citizens are mostly channeled through NGOs (in Lori, Syunik, Armavir, Shirak, and Vayotz Dzor regions).
Another success story of NGO collaboration is the participation of several NGO members in the Expert Council under the Defender.
The Defender has held a number of discussions and consultation workshops with NGOs in the Defender’s Office, as well. Five workshops have been held in the Defender’s Office with direct participation of NGOs to discuss the introduction of social security cards. NGOs have taken part in round table discussions on environmental protection and protecting the rights of refugees, the disabled, women, children, and consumers.
The Defender has taken the initiative to discuss collaboration agreements with four charitable and human rights organizations. As well, the Defender’s staff actively participates and makes presentations at events held by various NGOs.
In order to further enhance the efficiency of joint measures, NGOs are expected to present specific proposals on collaboration.
2.3. Awareness and Public Relations
The Defender’s activities are characterized by accountability (while maintaining confidentiality of complaints), accessibility of information, and readiness to engage in a dialogue with the mass media. During 2004 alone, over 140 articles were published in the press concerning the Defender’s activities. Moreover, the Defender’s activities have been reported on by nearly 90 TV and radio reports, including meetings and press conferences with the Defender, as well as news reports. Agreement has been reached with the editors of several newspapers to provide a permanent column in their newspapers on the Defender’s activities. These efforts are driven by the unconditional interest of the mass media in the development of this national human rights institution.
Among the Defender’s priorities is close collaboration and partnership with the mass media, as confirmed by the Defender’s responses to, and initiatives in, respect of mass media allegations of human rights. Collaboration with the mass media facilitates increased public awareness of the Defender’s institution, better knowledge among members of society of their rights, and enhanced ability to protect such rights.
Press conferences of the Defender were held on the 45th and 100th days, and the 6th and 9th months, after the creation of the Defender’s institution. On these occasions, statistical data and booklets prepared by the Information and Public Relations Team were distributed to the mass media.
In the frameworks of a joint project between the National Assembly and UNDP entitled “Support to Human Rights Protection and Increased Public Awareness of Human Rights in Armenia”, some members of the Defender’s staff took part in the creation of documentaries, posters, and brochures on the Defender’s institution, as well as the Defender’s website. These documentaries are regularly broadcast on various TV stations in Armenia.
2.4. International Collaboration
The Defender’s institution has been active in establishing practical collaboration with inter-governmental and international organizations, as well as national and international ombudsman institutions.
During 2004, practical links were established with the Council of Europe’s Directorate General for Human Rights, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner’s Office, the European Court of Human Rights, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, UNESCO, UNDP, and international organizations and embassies accredited in Armenia.
Databases have been created on organizations implementing projects jointly with international and inter-governmental institutions, international donors, and the Defender’s staff.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the Helsinki Fund for Human Rights (Poland), which provides that the Fund will finance the participation of one representative of the Defender’s staff in training courses held twice a year by the International School of Human Rights.
In response to the new global threat of international terrorism, agreement was reached with UNESCO’s Paris and Moscow offices to carry out an international conference in Yerevan entitled “Tolerance, Discrimination, and Xenophobia in the Context of International Terrorism (Caucasus Region)”. The Conference will be held from May 24 to 25, 2005 with the financial support of UNESCO’s Moscow office.
In the frameworks of round tables held by UNDP, close contacts have been established with national ombudsman institutions of Europe and the CIS. During 2004, the Defender and the staff took part in the Third and Fourth Round Tables, during which an agreement was reached on holding the Sixth Round Table in Yerevan.
Meetings of ombudsmen held in the frameworks of CIS inter-governmental summits have provided an additional forum for information and experience sharing with CIS ombudsman institutions.
The effective collaboration with the People’s Defender’s Office of Georgia is noteworthy. In 2004 the Armenian Defender’s staff participated in all the international human rights conferences and training courses held in Tbilisi. A delegation of the Georgian People’s Defender’s Office visited the Armenian Defender’s institution for experience sharing and learning about the activities of the Defender and the structure and practices of the institution. Meetings with the Defender’s staff were also held.
In cases in which rights of Armenian citizens were violated abroad, the Defender undertook measures to draw attention to such cases through the ombudsmen or equivalent authorities of such foreign states.
In 2003, an international working group made up of representatives of the following diplomatic missions and international organizations was created to issue an expert opinion on the Law on the Human Rights Defender and to support the creation and strengthening of the Defender’s institution: UNHCR Country Office for Armenia, UNICEF, Information Center of the Council of Europe, UNDP, OSI AF, World Learning, Embassy of the UK in Armenia, the International Bar Association, ABA/CEELI, and ALSP.
During 2004, a number of meetings with the working group were held. During these meetings, the participants discussed the working visit of Dean M. Gotterher (UNDP Advisor on the Ombudsman) to Armenia, the amendments proposed to the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender, the new concepts regarding the status of the Defender’s staff, the Strategic Action Plan for Development of the Defender’s Staff, and the Defender’s relationship with the mass media.
The Defender’s staff submitted a proposal to the Armenia Country Office of DFID’s Development Program requesting its support for the creation of regional representative offices for capacity building. This support will help the Defender’s staff to promote joint efforts between local self-government and civil society aimed at preventing human rights violations caused by social conflicts.
The Defender positively responded to the proposal initiated by the European Commission’s Armenia Regional Development Program (REDAM-TACIS) to have regional representation of the Defender throughout Armenia. Moreover, the Defender presented a project proposal and signed a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding with REDAM on the creation of the Defender’s Representative Offices in two regions of Armenia.
In light of important final recommendations made during a discussion of reports presented by participating states to the session of the Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC), and especially the recommendation on the appropriateness of establishing an institution for effectively protecting the rights of children and for conducting additional monitoring into the rights of children, the Defender’s staff has presented a project proposal to the Country Office of USAID on enhancing the role of the Ombudsman in introducing legislation on the protection of children’s rights.
In view of CRC’s important recommendation on having a separate institution in the Defender’s staff to deal with the protection of children’s rights, and commending the 10-year Strategic Action Plan on Protection of Children’s Rights in the Republic of Armenia, the Defender has presented a project to UNICEF regarding the coordination of projects in the area of children’s rights and monitoring of compliance with CRC’s recommendations.
Implementation of these projects is expected to take place during 2005 and 2006.
2.5. Own Initiatives
The Defender’s approach is as follows: in the event of any violation of human rights and freedoms, intervention is mandatory regardless of whether a complaint has been filed.
During March and April, 2004, when there were reported cases of the police limiting the movement of passenger transport, the Defender took the initiative to set up teams of its staff to check various roads leading into Yerevan and, based on its observations, filed appropriate motions.
The Defender took the initiative to visit prisons where individuals sentenced to administrative detention were held, and monitored court sessions that preceded such detention.
As a result of these visits, and due to the motions of the Defender, the limitations on passenger transport were mitigated, and the number of administrative detention cases fell.
The Defender took the initiative to meet with prisoners who went on hunger strike every time the Defender learned about such cases from the press, or from prison administration officials during such visits, which were conducted in conjunction with other purposes. In most cases, the prisoners were convinced to stop the hunger strike.
The Defender took the initiative to meet with individuals sentenced to life imprisonment and to study their issues. In this respect the Defender took the initiative to hold discussions with the representatives of the authorities on these inmates’ cases.
Quite important was that the Defender and her staff visited military detachments in order to investigate the conditions of the servicemen, military services, sanitation, and hygiene. These visits raised the awareness of non-career servicemen of their rights, including the right of appeal to the Defender, the procedure of filing such appeals, and to investigate other related matters.
Due to the peculiar nature of the military in Armenia, there are at times difficulties associated with site investigations. However, frequent meetings create an atmosphere of mutual confidence, and the Defender is now seen as an official who helps address and resolve certain problems, rather than someone who controls.
Regarding disagreements and dissatisfaction due to the implementation of the social security system and the distribution of social security cards, the Defender took the initiative to hold over a dozen discussions and meetings at various levels (in both Yerevan and the regions).
In criminal cases of public interest, the Defender investigated media leads on her own initiative and made appropriate recommendations to the Prosecutor General of Armenia.
In view of extreme dissatisfaction with the urban development projects in Yerevan and the ensuing violations of citizens’ property rights during the alienation and condemnation process, the Defender took the initiative to investigate these matters as well.
The Defender regularly takes the initiative to monitor court sessions in cases of public interest.
Activities initiated by the Defender not only are helpful from a standpoint of human rights protection and restoration, but also facilitate prevention of violations.
2.6. Rapid Response
Rapid response, as a separate area, emerged from the very start of the Defender’s activities as an effective technique of discovering, reporting, and often preventing human rights violations.
Rapid response is engaged:
· In cases that require immediate intervention, based mainly on oral allegations of human rights violations;
· With the aim of determining the actual situation in respect of human rights by visiting, without prior notice, places where human rights are at an increased danger. Information gathered during such visits later serves the Defender’s proprio motu investigations and helps in the restoration of violated rights;
· To prevent unlawful interference by central or local government bodies in complaints under investigation or review; and
· To establish an around-the-clock presence during certain periods, such as election days, in order to receive warning at any time, to respond immediately, and to intervene for restoring violated rights.
Forty-two visits were organized on the Defender’s own initiative, or on the basis of complaints to the Yerevan Police Custody Center and some penitentiaries under the Ministry of Justice (including the facilities at Gyumri, Goris, Vanadzor, Kosh, Yerevan, Yerevan-Center, Nubarashen, Erebouni, and Prisoners’ Hospital). Meetings were arranged with life prisoners, imprisoned foreign citizens, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoiding compulsory military service, all prisoners known to be on a hunger strike, and 62 other inmates. During these visits, legal advice was rendered to individuals who were not aware of their rights and who could not otherwise protect such rights on their own.
The visits were aimed at studying not only the imprisonment conditions, but also the protection of the staff’s rights and the working conditions. The same activities were carried out at military units, hospitals, and children’s institutions.
The Rapid Response Team makes at least two visits a month to various regional institutions which, in the absence of the Defender’s representatives in the regions, facilitates citizens’ access to the Defender’s institution.
Due to the speed with which the Rapid Response Team operates, success was reported in cases such as unlawful evictions by the Judicial Enforcement Department, unlawful police detention, limitations of passenger transport movement, and the like.
Thus, rapid response has proven to be an important and efficient tool in the Defender’s staff’s arsenal.
2.7. Workshops
Feedback from special and vulnerable groups, as well as human rights organizations advocating their causes, was taken into consideration in identifying legal and social problems encountered by such groups, and to develop recommendations on addressing such problems.
To this end, workshops were held on women’s and children’s rights, environmental protection, issues faced by refugees and the disabled, and consumer protection.
The workshop on legal protection of refugees was attended by non-governmental organizations, a representative of the UNHCR Armenia Office, and a representative of the Armenian Government’s Department for Migration and Refugees. The participants of the meeting discussed issues related to the acquisition of Armenian citizenship by refugees and, in particular, cases of refusing to issue a passport due to the lack of registration. Also discussed was housing and other social problems affecting refugees, violation of refugee rights during the privatization process, and the position of the judiciary on these cases.
The workshop on the protection of the disabled was attended by the Armenian Association of Individuals with Disabilities and NGOs such as “Bridge of Hope”, “Faith”, “Unison”, and “Astghik”, as well as representatives of the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry’s Department for Individuals with Disabilities. Current issues were discussed and legislative amendments suggested.
Several workshops were held on social security cards, which were attended by representatives of the various authorities and the respective NGOs.
A special workshop was held on the problems of individuals sentenced to death under the previous Criminal Code, but whose sentences had not been executed before the enactment of the new Criminal Code.
2.8. Expert Council
Under Article 26 of the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender, the Defender may create an Expert Council to provide advice to the Defender. The members of the Expert Council are unpaid volunteers.
In light of the need to gain access to impartial expert opinions on issues encountered during human rights activities, the Defender adopted a decree on September 28, 2004 to create an Expert Council consisting of 15 legal scientists, professors, advocates, and legal counselors. Under the same decree, the Defender approved the By-Laws of the Council, which lays down its goals, objective, and operational procedures.
The members of the Council have appropriate knowledge and experience in human rights protection, which facilitates the Defender’s activities.
The Council convenes sessions at least once every two months to discuss the most urgent issues encountered during the Defender’s activities, as well as those complaints to the Defender which have generated a large amount of public interest and are related to mass violations of human rights (e.g. the cases of the Northern Boulevard, Buzand Street, the Dalma Orchards, etc).
During its sessions, the Expert Council has discussed, among other things, the Defender’s relationship with courts during the review of complaints on alleged human rights violations by the courts, the necessity and appropriateness of classifying the Defender’s staff as civil servants, and the human rights context around the deprivation of ownership regarding the construction of Northern Boulevard. The Defender has highly appreciated the advisory views and positions of the Expert Council on the aforementioned issues.
2.9. Handling Complaints
2.9.1. Complaint Statistics
During the period from March 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, the Defender received 1,294 written complaints from 2,346 citizens. The Defender, her Deputy, and staff experts received 1,337 citizens and answered about 2,300 telephone calls to provide the necessary legal advice.
A general overview and classification of complaints has made it possible to assess how well rights and freedoms are protected in different aspects of public life, and to review problems that need to be solved.
The complaints were related to the following spheres:
1. Civil law and management of assets 256
2. Criminal law 218
3. Social security 189
4. Administrative law and housing 126
5. Employment law 108
6. Criminal procedure law 83
7. Local self-government 65
8. Education and science 58
9. Penitentiary law 47
10. Rights of servicemen and public servants 35
11. Economic law, taxes and duties, and consumer rights 29
12. Constitutional and international law 24
13. Family law and rights of the disabled 20
14. Health care 10
15. Rights of national minorities and foreigners 4
16. Miscellaneous 22
The complaints were mainly related to the following violations:
1. Right to a fair trial (courts): 132
2. Right to effective judicial remedy: 19
3. Complaints against the judicial enforcement department: 40
4. Right to freedom of movement (police): 7
5. Right to immunity against violence and cruel and inhumane treatment (police): 52
6. Right to a fair trial and effective protection against charges (prosecution and investigation): 67
7. Right to social protection (social security agencies): 9
8. Right to housing (municipalities): 38
9. Right to ownership and other economic rights (local self-government): 47
10. Other property rights (real estate cadastre): 22
The following is a geographic breakdown of complaints:
1. Yerevan City 982
2. Aragatsotn Region 43
3. Ararat Region 47
4. Armavir Region 53
5. Gegharkunik Region 61
6. Lori Region 75, of which Vanadzor: 41
7. Kotayk Region 59
8. Shirak Region 97, of which Gyumri: 49
9. Syunik Region 32
10. Vayotz Dzor Region 12
11. Tavush Region 22
12. Other areas 11
The number of complaints from the regions is relatively small, because the Defender is not represented in the regions, and the regional public is less aware of the existence and functions of the Defender.
The large number of complaints from residents of Yerevan is due, among other reasons, to the large number of courts and investigative authorities in the capital city, as well as urban development activities in Yerevan resulting in the alienation of citizens’ real property assets. In this context, the number of complaints against the Mayor’s Office is rather high.
2.9.2. Progress and Results
All complaints addressed to the Defender are presented to the Defender.
v The Defender familiarizes herself with the complaint and allegations stated therein and, with a view to making a decision on the complaint within a one-month period, assigns the respective staff expert to study the complaint and collect information on the issues raised by means of inquiries, visits, monitoring, legal reviews, and other legal means.
v The Defender reviews the findings of the study and, under Article 11 of the Armenian Law on the Human Rights Defender, makes a decision on:
o Accepting the complaint for review;
o Sending the complaint to another body;
o Explaining the available remedies; and
o Refusing to accept the complaint.
v After studying the complaint accepted for review, a decision is made either finding or not finding a violation of human rights in the activities of the respective central or local authority or official.
If a human rights violation is not found, the review of the complaint shall be deemed concluded. Thereafter, the complainant shall be notified within 5 days of adopting such decision.
If a human rights violation is found, a suggestion on restoring the right is made to the respective state agency, and the complainant is notified thereof.
v The following scenarios are possible regarding the restoration of violated human rights:
1. The authority agrees with the Defender’s suggestion, in which case the review of the complaint shall end when the violated right is restored; or
2. The authority may disagree or fail to respond to the Defender’s suggestion, or provide various excuses to delay addressing the issue, in which case the Defender takes other legal measures, and the activities regarding the complaint do not end unless the violated right is restored by such authority. This is the reason why dozens of complaints received last year, which were found to be violations of human rights and suggestions were made, are still pending.
v Here are some statistics concerning the outcome of reviewing 1,294 written complaints and applications addressed to the Defender:
1. Accepted for review 471
2. Applicant informed of available remedies 150
3. Forwarded to another agency 79
4. To be supplemented 53
5. Not accepted for review 541
As a result of the review, a certain number of applications were not accepted for review. The reasons are listed below:
1. The matter is exclusively subject to judicial procedure, has been through all the judicial steps, and there are court judgments that have become final;
2. The complaint is related to violations of citizens’ rights in the private sector or disputes between private parties;
3. The complaint is generic, rather than specific, and:
a) The complainant has failed to name the central or local government body or official which has violated a right;
b) The complainant has failed to make any claim; or
c) The complainant has failed to give his telephone number, and there is no way to contact him to fill in the missing information;
4. There are other reasons, as prescribed by law, such as the matter that was raised in the complaint is subject to judicial review.
v The number of inadmissible complaints is rather high (541), which is partially a consequence of the fact that the public and, in particular, vulnerable groups, have a limited awareness of the Defender’s mandate and activities, i.e. the public expects more than the Defender’s mandate prescribes.
Nevertheless, inadmissible complaints have been studied. The studies have covered:
- A meeting with the complainant, if the complainant is in prison, in the military, or in a remote area;
- An inquiry with the agency or official against whom the complaint was lodged and, where necessary, a meeting to discuss the issue;
- Seeking possible ways of assisting the complainant with regard to the issues raised in the complaint; and
- Reviewing legislative gaps which cause problems that are ultimately raised in complaints and developing recommendations on how to address such gaps.
During meetings with the Defender, the Deputy, or staff, those whose complaints were declared inadmissible were able to present the problems in person and to receive an explanation as to why their complaints were not reviewed and, if necessary, to receive professional counseling.
v Though private sector employment-related violations of human rights by employers are beyond the Defender’s mandate, a large number of complaints raised apparent violations of human rights in this sphere, which led the Defender to review the legislation and practices concerning human rights violations in the private sector employment (see Appendix 2).
v A large number of inadmissible complaints were those from prisoners, most of which had to do with allegations of charges against such prisoners not being adequately proven. Such complaints were not reviewed in light of the courts’ jurisdiction based on its review of evidence.
However, in all of these cases, the Defender made sure to meet with prisoners because regardless of the substance of their complaints, they always need some advice on their cases and their situations. These prisoners do not have access to lawyers; many of the prisoners had not used lawyers during their cases due to a lack of knowledge of their procedural rights.
v Of the 471 complaints reviewed, investigations were carried out in 245 cases, including:
1. Making a suggestion on the basis of the review 93
2. Review terminated:
o Due to the complainant appealing to court 33
o Due to the lack of any allegation or claim related to a violation of human rights 110