11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Courts remained subject to political pressure from the executive branch, and judicial corruption was a serious problem ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23015]

"The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, despite structural changes initiated in 2006 that still continue and have resulted in a somewhat greater independence, courts remained subject to political pressure from the executive branch, and judicial corruption was a serious problem."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Widespread reports that prosecutors and police used confessions that were obtained through methods that some NGOs characterized as torture ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23016]

"There were widespread reports that prosecutors and police used confessions that were obtained through methods that some NGOs characterized as torture. Defense lawyers may present evidence of torture to overturn improperly obtained confessions; however, defendants, their attorneys, and NGOs often stated that judges and prosecutors refused to admit such evidence into court proceedings, even when the perpetrator could be identified."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Police often questioned and pressured detainees to confess prior to indictment and in the absence of counsel ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20185]

"The law also requires police to inform detainees of their right to remain silent, to make a phone call, and to be represented by an attorney from the moment of arrest and before indictment (including state‑provided lawyers for indigent detainees). In practice police did not always abide by the law. They often questioned and pressured detainees to confess prior to indictment and in the absence of counsel. Since witnesses do not have the right to legal counsel or prompt judicial determination, police used this loophole to interrogate suspects in the absence of counsel and to detain them beyond the three‑day limit for indicting suspects. Police sometimes restricted family members' access to detainees."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20187]

"Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. According to the law, a suspect may not be detained for more than 12 months awaiting trial and authorities generally did not exceed this limit. The government reported that during the first nine months of the year, pretrial detainees constituted on average about 25 percent of a prison population of nearly 3,000."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Defendants commonly refused free counsel due to the poor quality of the public defenders ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20196]

"The law generally requires that trials be public, but it permits many exceptions, including when a trial's secrecy is in the interest of "morals," national security, or for the "protection of the private lives of the participants." Juries are not used. A single judge issues verdicts in courts of first instance, and panels of judges preside over the other courts. Defendants generally have the right, and are generally required, to be present at their trials, but this requirement also has many exceptions. They have the right to counsel of their own choosing, and the government is required to provide them with defense counsel upon request; however, this obligation was frequently not honored in the regions outside of Yerevan, where there often were not enough defense lawyers. Defendants also commonly refused free counsel due to the poor quality of the public defenders or the perception that public defenders colluded with prosecutors."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Presumption of innocence in practice not always observed ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20198]

"Defendants may confront witnesses and present evidence, and they and their attorneys may examine the government's case in advance of trial. Judges generally granted defendants' requests for additional time to prepare cases. The law provides for the presumption of innocence; in practice this right was not always observed. In one case during the year, defendants' lawyers who criticized the outcome of their case, were sued for contempt of court by the judges involved (see section 1.c)."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Reports that prosecutors used confessions obtained through methods that some NGOs asserted amounted to torture ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20200]

"There were reports that prosecutors used confessions obtained through methods that some NGOs asserted amounted to torture, as central elements of their cases. Defense lawyers may present evidence of torture to overturn improperly obtained confessions; however, defendants stated that judges and prosecutors refused to admit such evidence into court proceedings, even when the perpetrator could be identified."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Many cases were remanded to the prosecutor's office for lack of evidence and prosecutors dropped the cases ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20201]

"Court statistics released on August 7 indicated that fewer than 1 percent of court cases resulted in acquittals. However, these statistics do not reflect the many cases that judges remanded to the prosecutor's office for lack of evidence and that prosecutors dropped and never sent back to court. Thus prosecutors, in effect, often lost their cases during the year. According to one international NGO specializing in legal issues, pretrial investigations lasted an average of one to three months. Both defendants and prosecutors have the right to appeal."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Courts widely perceived as corrupt ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20204]

"The same courts hear civil and criminal cases. Citizens had access to courts to bring lawsuits seeking damages for, or cessation of, a human rights violation; however, the courts were widely perceived as corrupt, and potential litigants in civil cases often evaluated the advisability of bringing suit on the basis of whether they or their opponents had greater resources with which to influence judges. Citizens also had access to the ombudsman's office, and during the year they were given access to the Constitutional Court when they judged that constitutional rights were not being protected (see sections 1.e., and 4)."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Pre-trial police practice violating fair trial standards; police often pressures detainees to confess prior to indictment ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15703]

"According to the law, a detainee must be indicted or released within three days of arrest, and this procedure was usually followed in practice, although in some cases police skirted this requirement by alleging suspects were material witnesses. Material witnesses do not have the right to prompt judicial determination or legal counsel. The law provides a bail system; however, most courts denied requests for bail in favor of detention. The law also requires police to inform detainees of their right to remain silent, to make a phone call, and to be represented by an attorney from the moment of arrest and before indictment (including state-provided lawyers for indigent detainees). In practice, police did not always abide by the law. Police often questioned and pressured detainees to confess prior to indictment when they did not have an attorney present. The law does not guarantee witnesses the right to legal counsel or prompt judicial determination and police exploited this loophole to interrogate suspects in the absence of counsel or detain them beyond the three-day limit for indicting suspects. Police sometimes restricted family members' access to detainees."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Problem of lenghty pretrial detention; prosecutors as well as attorneys delay trials ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15707]

"Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. According to the law, a suspect may not be detained for more than 12 months awaiting trial, but in practice this provision was not always enforced. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently requested and received trial postponements on the grounds that they required more time to prepare for trial. In some cases postponements were used as an excuse to prolong interrogations. The government reported that, at year's end there were 317 pretrial detainees accounting for approximately 11 percent of the 2879-person prison population."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15741]

"The law prohibits unauthorized searches and provides for the right to privacy and confidentiality of communications; however, the government did not always respect these rights in practice.

Under the law, authorities must present compelling evidence to obtain permission from a judge to wiretap a telephone or intercept correspondence. Nonetheless, in practice the law was not strictly enforced and some judges arbitrarily granted permission.

At times police maintained surveillance of draft age men to prevent them from fleeing the country."

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Turkish scholar arrested and denied access to legal counsel for 2 days ("World Report 2006") [#42310],  [ID 17661]

"In June, law enforcement authorities arrested Yektan Turkyilmaz, a Turkish scholar who had been carrying out historical research using Armenian archives, for failing to obtain official permission to take old books out of the country. After his arrest, security officers questioned him and his associates about his research and political views. They denied him access to a lawyer for two days and then provided him with a state-appointed lawyer, not of his choice. In August, after significant international pressure, he was released on a two-year suspended prison sentence."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary subjected to political pressure from executive; arbitrary arrests, violence and torture during police detention ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41286],  [ID 3014]

"The judiciary is subject to political pressure from the executive branch and also suffers from violations of due process. Police frequently make arbitrary arrests without warrants, beat detainees during arrest and interrogation, and use torture to extract confessions. A Human Rights Watch report concluded that police denied access to legal counsel to those opposition supporters who were given short prison terms for participating in unauthorized rallies after the 2003 presidential vote."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Constitutional presumption of innocence in practice not always observed; detainees are not allowed to file complaint to address alleged abuses by officials prior to trial ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3015]

"The Constitution provides for the presumption of innocence; however, in practice this right was not always observed. Prosecutors often did not begin a trial if they believed they would not obtain a guilty verdict. As a result, defendants remained in detention during extended pretrial investigations. Both defendants and prosecutors have the right to appeal.

The law does not allow detainees to file a complaint prior to trial to address alleged abuses committed by the Prosecutor's Office, the police, or other security forces during criminal investigations. Failure to testify is a criminal offense; detainees must obtain permission from the police or the Prosecutor's Office to obtain a forensic medical examination to substantiate a report of torture. Defense lawyers may present evidence of torture in an effort to overturn improperly obtained confessions; however, defendants stated that judges and prosecutors refused to admit such evidence into court proceedings even when perpetrator(s) could be identified."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Lengthy pre-trial detention remanis problem ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3016]

"Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. According to the law, a suspect may not be detained for more than 12 months pending trial; however, in practice, this provision was not always enforced. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently requested trial postponements on the grounds that they required more time to prepare for trial."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

Detainees are not allowed to file a complaint in court prior to trial to redress abuses committed by the Prosecutor's Office, the police, or other security forces during criminal investigations ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11840],  [ID 3017]

"The Criminal Procedure Code does not allow detainees to file a complaint in court prior to trial to redress abuses committed by the Prosecutor's Office, the police, or other security forces during criminal investigations. Witnesses have no right to legal counsel during questioning while in police custody--even though failure to testify is a criminal offense--and detainees must obtain permission from the police or the Procurator's Office to obtain a forensic medical examination to substantiate a report of torture. Although defense lawyers may present evidence of torture in an effort to overturn improperly obtained confessions, and according to law, all such charges must be investigated, judges and prosecutors routinely ignored such complaints even when the perpetrator could be identified.
All trials are public except when government secrets are at issue. Defendants are required to attend their trials unless they have been accused of a minor crime not punishable by imprisonment. Defendants have access to a lawyer of their own choosing. The court appoints an attorney for any indigent defendants who need one. However, during 2001, the Helsinki Association conducted a survey of the courts together with the International Helsinki Federation, the International Union of Armenian Lawyers and the Moscow Helsinki Group. According to their joint report, 38 percent of 50 respondents stated that they were not provided with defense attorneys during the preliminary investigation. Reportedly individuals often choose to defend themselves in court because they had little respect for a defense attorney's professional skills and ethics.
Defendants may confront witnesses and present evidence. The Constitution provides that those accused of crimes shall be informed of charges against them. The constitutionally mandated presumption of innocence was not always observed in practice, and acquittals were rare once a case went to trial. Defendants and prosecutors have the right to appeal; figures released by the Association of Armenian Judges showed that in 2000, three out of four appeals were turned down by higher courts. During 2000 563 of 2,266 court rulings were overruled or annulled."

Document(s): Open document

28.11.2002 - Source: Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation

Only two percent of the population are in a position to afford a court case ("8th European Country of Origin Information Seminar Vienna, 28 - 29 June 2002: Final Report - Armenia - co-funded by the EU Odysseus Programme") [#9877],  [ID 3018]

"But only two percent of the population are in a position to afford a court case. Disregarding the financial difficulties, most citizens are completely frustrated when it comes to courts. The legal process is considered to be corrupt, and this opinion is certainly well based, for in most cases the verdicts are already taken before a court session is held. The outcome usually depends on which party pays the higher bribes to the presiding judge. In effect, the independence of the judiciary in Armenia is highly questionable. AI: One example is the recent alleged killing of an ethnic Armenian from Georgia by presidential guards in a popular café in Yerevan. There have been many reports indicating that one or more of the presidential guards had beaten the victim to death. Nevertheless, the court only gave one presidential guard a suspended sentence. The speculation is that because he was a presidential guard the judiciary gave him a 'slap' instead of a real sentence."

Document(s): Arm-cois2002-rep.pdf

10.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Detainees are not allowed to file a complaint in court prior to trial to redress irregularities during criminal investigations ("Analysen und Hintergründe ") [#10328],  [ID 3019]

"Willkürliche polizeiliche Festnahmen ohne Haftbefehl sind häufig. Im Oktober 2001 wurde Robert Chatschatrjan zwei Mal wegen des Verdachts auf Diebstahl festgenommen und von Polizisten in der Polizeistation des Jerewaner Stadtteils Chorchurdajin geschlagen. Ende des selben Monats verschleppte ihn einer der beteiligten Polizisten im Auto in eine entlegene Gegend am Stadtrand und drohte ihn dort zu erschiessen, falls er nicht den Diebstahl gestehe oder bereit sei, als Polizeispitzel zu arbeiten. Herr Chatschatrjan trug eine ärztlich attestierte Rückenverletzung davon und forderte, von der Armenischen Helsinki Vereinigung ermutigt, den regionalen Staatsanwalt auf, gegen die Polizeibeamten von Chorhurdajin vorzugehen, zog aber nach Befragung durch den Staatsanwalt seine Klage zurück und erklärte, er habe seine Rückenverletzung bei einem Unfall erlitten.
Das seit 1999 angewendete neue Strafgesetzbuch verhindert, dass Zeugen während ihrer Vernehmungen im Polizeigewahrsam einen Rechtsbeistand hinzuziehen können. Diese Gesetzeslücke nutzen Vernehmungsbeamte, um Verdächtige als Zeugen aufzurufen und sie zu zwingen, Geständnissen zu unterschreiben. Richter gehen Beschwerden über erzwungene Geständnisse meist nicht nach. Es ist auch vorgekommen, dass Zeugen mit strafrechtlicher Verfolgung wegen Meineids bedroht wurden, falls sie sich weigerten, erzwungene Aussagen vor Gericht zu wiederholen.
Untersuchungshäftlinge können vor Verfahrensbeginn keine gerichtliche Klage gegen Unregelmässigkeiten bei strafrechtlichen Ermittlungen einreichen. Oft werden Festgenommene nicht über ihre Rechte informiert, vor allem nicht über das Recht auf einen Rechtsbeistand. Bestehen sie auf diesem Recht, wird ihnen erst nach Genehmigung durch den Ermittler ein Rechtsbeistand gewährt. Polizeibeamte schicken häufig keine schriftlichen Vorladungen, falls sie jemand vernehmen möchten, sondern bestellen sie mündlich ein."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Sakharov Armenian Human Rights Centre

The system of justice is always ready to protect the interests of authorities or of those people who are prepared to bribe ("Analytical Report (period covered: 1 September 2001 to 30 September 2002)") [#9949],  [ID 3020]

"Though this right is proclaimed it may be exercised only by certain individuals or groups of people. As a rule, the RA system of justice is always ready to protect the interests of authorities or of those people who are prepared to bribe. In accordance with the principles of mutual guarantee unofficially applied by the system of justice the claims against certain officials of authorities are repudiated. Even if the decision is taken in favor of a claimant who has made a claim against authorities to the court of first instance this decision cannot be put into life remaining “on the paper”, or this decision is repudiated by the Court of Appeals."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Sakharov Armenian Human Rights Centre

Lack of fair trial ("Analytical Report (period covered: 1 September 2001 to 30 September 2002)") [#9949],  [ID 3021]

"This right is declared in all the RA Laws regulating the performance of the whole law-enforcement system. But the practice shows the following:
1. Investigative agencies are not concerned about the enforcement of this right.
2. The attorneys of attorney associations who practise law should be paid by their clients. Thus, their service appears to be inaccessible to wide sections of population.
3. The attorneys who are represented by law-enforcement bodies, as a rule, do not wish for spoiling relations with their employer. So, the defence is unsatisfactory.
4. Legal literacy of people is very poor, and detainees as well as plaintiffs or witnesses are not informed on their rights and duties by the RA law-enforcement officials though they must do it according to the RA legislation. Wide sections of population are provided with legal or counsel assistance, mainly, by competent NGOs."

Document(s): Open document