Ministers’ Deputies / Working Groups

GT-SUIVI .AGO
Monitoring Group

GT-SUIVI.AGO(2006)5-final 7 June 2006[1]

————————————————

Analysis of the replies of the Armenian authorities to the questionnaire on the outstanding obligations and commitments undertaken by ARMENIA on accession to the Council of Europe

————————————————

ARMENIA

I. Elections and electoral law

Questions

The Group welcomes the fact that the Electoral Code of Armenia, as amended by the National Assembly on 17 May 2005, implements several of the recommendations made by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission and constitutes a positive improvement in the legal framework for elections (for example, concerning the training and certification of electoral commission members, the introduction of a national voters’ register, the rights and safeguards of proxies, voting procedures and the publication of voting results). The Armenian authorities in are to be commended for making these improvements.

At the same time, the Group notes that the Electoral Code could still be improved, particularly in the areas of electoral administration and election complaints. Of particular concern are the provisions for filing election complaints and appeals, which fail to create a sound legal framework for the adjudication of election disputes and the protection of suffrage rights. The Group would like to know what measures the Armenian authorities envisage to take in order to address these outstanding questions and within which time-frame.

Beyond the adoption of the above-mentioned amendments, good faith implementation of the Code will be crucial for the conduct of genuinely democratic elections. In this respect, most international observers have pointed out that the most important shortcoming in the conduct of elections in Armenia lies in the implementation of the Electoral Code, not in the Code itself. Among the most important concerns has been the failure by public authorities to take measures against those violating the election law. Therefore, the success of the amendments will depend on their concrete implementation.

Another crucial element for future elections will be the updating of the electoral lists. The Group would like to know what measures the Armenian authorities intend to take for this purpose in the perspective of the next elections to be held in the country.

Reply

In cooperation with the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, the following amendments were made to the Electoral Code in 2005:

- introducing a new procedure for the formation of electoral commissions with the involvement of judges in Territorial Electoral Commissions (TECs) and the Central Electoral Commission (CEC),

- the obligatory requirement of qualification as a result of training and exam of citizens involved in electoral commissions,

- extension of the rights of proxies and observers,

- introducing new procedures of compilation of voters list and introduction of a concept of voters register,

- introducing procedures of transmission of election results from TECs to the CEC through computer network by electronic version,

- introducing procedures of tabulation of results by precinct and summarisation of results by precinct (such procedures of summarisation of results is recommended by the OSCE/ODIHR 2003 election observation mission),

- introducing new procedures of complaints against the electoral commission decisions, actions (inactions).

After the local elections and the referendum of 2005, the necessity of making new amendments to the Electoral Code has appeared with regard to the concretisation of electoral procedures and the correction of gaps in the Electoral Code. During the implementation of those changes, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Venice Commission, amendments will be made to the procedures of complaints against the electoral commissions’ decisions and actions (inactions), in order to make the complaints procedure more accurate.

The training and qualification of electoral commission members based on it will increase the efficiency of election administration. The training of commission members and candidates for commission members has already been launched and as of 1 March 2007, the training of 20.000 citizens is planned to be implemented. The training costs are covered from the state budget.

With the support of the Government, the setting-up of the network between the TECs and the CEC will be completed by 1 September this year. The network will make it possible to transmit the electronic data from the TECs to the CEC, which will shorten the duration of elections results summarisation. Civil servants will be hired in TECs, on a competitive basis, to organise and transmit those data from the TECs to the CEC in Marzes, which will also improve the process of election administration.

The compilation of voters list by one authorised agency has increased its quality, the evidence of which is the small number of people who applied to court to restore their right to vote during the local elections and the referendum. Work in this area is currently under way and the voters register will be posted on the website of the CEC by 1 March 2006 to be available to political parties, NGOs, candidates and, in general, to every citizen.

Comments on the reply

The Group reiterates the importance which it attaches to the improvement of electoral law and practice in Armenia, having regard to the shortcomings noted during the constitutional referendum last November. The measures taken by the Armenian authorities to improve the organisation of elections are therefore welcomed. The Group has been informed that on 28 March 2006, the Armenian authorities asked the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR for an opinion on a draft revised version of the electoral code, with a view to its submission to Parliament. The Group expects that the revision of the electoral code will take due account of the opinion which is due to be delivered by the Venice Commission in June and that the timetable for the examination of the draft revised code by the National Assembly of Armenia will be adjusted accordingly. It would appreciate being informed of the steps taken for this purpose. Moreover, the Group reminds the authorities that the implementation of the electoral code in conformity with European electoral standards is crucial.

ARMENIA

II. Functioning of democratic institutions (political parties, Ombudsman, local democracy)

Law on Political Parties

The Group recalls its previous comments on this matter and its request that the law on political parties, as amended in December 2004, should be reviewed in the light of the suggestions made by the Venice Commission, in particular with respect to registration requirements and dissolution. The Group would like to know what measures the Armenian authorities envisage to take in order to address these questions and within which time-frame.

Comments

The Group regrets that the Armenian authorities did not reply to this question and reiterates its request for a review of this law.

Ombudsman

Questions

The adoption of the amendments to the Constitution of Armenia by the referendum of 27 November 2005 empowers the Parliament to elect a new Ombudsman in accordance with Articles 3 and 27 of the Law on the Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Armenia. The Group encourages the Armenian authorities to seek the broadest political consensus in choosing the candidate for this important post.

The Group recalls that, when considering its last progress report on 21 September 2005, the Committee of Ministers “insisted on the need for energetic action to remedy the human rights violations reported by the Ombudsperson and to prevent their recurrence in the long term.” This appeal was made in the light, in particular, of the concerns expressed about serious violations of property rights in the context of real estate operations conducted in Yerevan, both in the Ombudsperson’s 2005 report and by representatives of NGOs met during the last visit of a delegation of the Ago Group to Yerevan in June 2005.

Since this visit, reports have been received about alleged pressure exerted by law enforcement officers on Mr Vahe Grigoryan, a lawyer working for the defence of families contesting these operations, who has subsequently been arrested and whose case is now pending before domestic courts.

The Group would like to know what measures have been taken by the Armenian authorities to follow up the Ombudsperson’s report, in particular concerning the specific problem mentioned above. The Group would also like to know whether the Armenian authorities wish to express any views on the case of Mr Grigoryan and the alleged pressure which would have been exerted on him.

Reply

This criminal case was initiated in the Department of Investigation of the Office of Prosecutor’s General of the Republic of Armenia on 10 June 2005, according to the provisions of the 1^st Point of the 3^rd Part of Article 179 and the 1^st Part of Article 325 of the Criminal Code.

The investigation discovered that during the period of June-July of 2003, Alexander Hakobyan came to the prior arrangement with Vahe Grigoryan, the director of “Right Legal Group” LTD, to receive from the state budget, through the court-trial, and afterwards to embezzle the sum of 22.858.300 Armenian drams, (that was the income of “Crate” LTD Armenian branch, acted in 1998) by means of obvious falsification and usage of documents. He typed obviously false proxy, dictated by Vahe Grigoryan, dated 30June and 3 July 2003, putting a false signature under the name of Gevorg Hakobyan, the son of the Director of Armenian branch of “Crate” LTD living in the USA, and signing by the seal he had. On 4 September 2003 he created a false claim statement, on the basis of which he was brought to the Economic Court of RA as a representative of the Armenian branch of “Crate” LTD,

and in the result, embezzled by fraud the sum of particularly large amount - 22.958.300 Armenian drams, which was seized from the state budget in favour of “Crate” LTD Armenian branch and transferred to the account of “Right Legal Group” by the court holding N S-2493, dated 30 October 2003. By means of appropriation,n he sent the sum to the account in the “Parex” Bank in Riga, which was a Bank of “Abona” LTD, registered in the USA.

Gagik Nikoghosyan, representative of the above-mentioned American company, aiming to conceal the concrete subjecting of the sum of particularly large amount (that was embezzled by Vahe Grigoryan and Alexander Hakobyan) and distort its substance, whereabouts and transfer, received it by cash, which means that he legalised the sum of particularly large amount proceeded from the crime.

In March 2005, Vahe Grigoryan gave Alexander Hakobyan his part of money 1.410.300 Armenian drams, equivalent to $3.000.

According to the 1^st Point of the 3^rd Part of Article 178 and 2^nd Part of Article 325 of the Criminal Code, on 30 November 2005, charges were brought against Vahe Grigoryan and Alexander Hakobyan for embezzlement of sum of particularly large amount by fraud and for falsification of documents.

On November 30 2005, decisions were made to include Vahe Grigoryan as an accused in the crime, prescribed by the 1^st Point of the 3^rd Part of Article 190, that is the legalisation of the sum of particularly large amount, proceeded from the crime, and to declare a search towards him.

The charge against Vahe Grigoryan is based on the testimonies of the accused Alexander Hakobyan, of the witnesses, on the interrogation, on the seized financial and accounting documents, on the conclusions of the criminological expertise of the documents and the graphology-expertise of letters, as well as on the evidence obtained during the preliminary investigation.

On October 10 2005, by the First Instance Court of the Nork-Marash District of the Yerevan City, decision was made to detain Vahe Grigoryan, as there were well-grounded suspicions that he could commit a serious crime, as well as there were sufficient grounds to suppose that he could impede the pre-trial or trial stages of investigation, falsifying the documents, publishing the data, obtained by the pre-trial investigation and by other means. He was repeatedly invited for interrogation, however refused from giving testimonies and answering the questions. As a result of the crimes committed by him, the property of particularly large amount was embezzled.

By the decision of the above-mentioned Court, the deadline of Vahe Grigoryan’s detention was extended till February 7 2006.

Attorneys of Vahe Grigoryan appealed the Court’s decisions concerning his detention and the extension of the deadlines of detention to the Court of Appeal. The latter studied the verdicts of the First Instance Court and decided to keep them unchanged.

On 1 February 2006, the First Instance Court decided to extend the detention till 7 April 2006.

Vahe Grigoryan’s attorneys filed another appeal. Because of the lack of sufficient grounds for extension of the detention deadline, the Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the First instance Court and Vahe Grigoryan was conditionally released on 15 February 2006.

Comments on the reply

The Group is grateful to the Armenian authorities for the information provided regarding the case of Mr Grigoryan. As regards the question of Mr Grigoryan’s guilt, it draws the authorities’ attention to the principle of presumption of innocence set out in Article 6.2. of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Group will continue to pay attention to this case and would like to be kept informed of any developments regarding this matter.

On the other hand, the Group regrets that the Armenian authorities have not replied to its question concerning the follow-up given to the report published by the former Ombudsperson, Ms Larissa Alaverdyan. It therefore reiterates this question, which it considers particularly important for advancing the cause of human rights protection in Armenia.

Local Democracy

Questions

As a general recommendation, the Group encourages the Armenian authorities to pursue, in consultation with local authority representatives, their efforts in furthering decentralisation - expanding the competences and strengthening the financial basis of local authorities in particular, according to the commitments undertaken by the Minister of Territorial Administration of Armenia before the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at its 2004 session.

More specifically, the Group welcomes the adoption of amendments to the law “On Local Self-Government” concerning administrative supervision in May 2005, following consultations with the Council of Europe experts.

The Group invites the Armenian authorities to resume work on the reform of the status of Yerevan, in the light of the outcome of the constitutional referendum and in close co-operation with the Council of Europe, taking into account the Council of Europe experts’ report provided on this matter in May 2005 and Recommendation 140 (2003) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. The Group would like to know what specific measures the Armenian authorities intend to take to complete this reform and within which time-frame.

The Group also invites the Armenian authorities to continue work on the reinforcement of the legal basis for the establishment and operation of inter-municipal unions, which was discussed with the Council of Europe experts earlier this year. It would like to know what specific measures the Armenian authorities intend to take in this area and within which time-frame. It recalls that the Council of Europe remains at the disposal of the Armenian authorities to provide further assistance in this field.

Finally, the Group reiterates its previous statements concerning the readiness of the Council of Europe to provide assistance in the implementation of the Law “On Municipal Service”. It welcomes the publication of the “Training Needs Assessment” for local government in April 2005, and emphasizes the importance of adopting of a “National Training Strategy” on this basis, in consultation with the Council of Europe.

Reply

The necessity of elaborating new legal acts or amendments to the ones in force resulted from the adoption of constitutional changes. In order to regulate these activities, the Ministry of Justice elaborated and the Government approved the timetable including the content of the legal acts, executors responsible for their elaboration, as well as the term of their elaboration. In particular, the following is envisaged with regard to the new model of Yerevan administration and intercommunity associations:

*Legal acts being changed or newly adopted*	*The relevant provisions of the RA Constitution on the basis of which the legal acts are being changed or adopted*	*The responsible executor*	*The term of implementation*
Draft Law of the RA on the City of Yerevan	108	The Ministry of Territorial Administration of the RA	The 1^st decade of December 2006
Draft Law of the RA on the Amendments and Additions to the RA Law on Local Self-Government	110	The Ministry of Territorial Administration of the RA	The 3^rd decade of August 2006

The conceptual provisions of the aforementioned legal acts were consecutively discussed with the Council of Europe experts and mostly positively assessed. The Ministry of Territorial Administration is ready to co-operate with the Council of Europe experts and is looking forward to their expert support.

Comments on the reply

The intention of the Armenian authorities to complete the work on the future status of Yerevan and inter-municipal co-operation by the end of the year is welcome. The Group hopes that this work will be carried out in line with the recommendations made by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe in 2003 and that the government will conduct a proper consultation of the Armenian communities throughout this process.

The Group strongly encourages the Armenian authorities to continue to closely co-operate with the experts of the Council of Europe on these issues; it invites the Armenian authorities to consider carefully the proposals included in the expert reports prepared in 2004 and 2005 and to submit the relevant draft laws to the Council of Europe for appraisal, as soon as they are ready.

Finally, the Group has been informed that, at a recent meeting held in Yerevan on 29-30 March 2006, the Armenia authorities also confirmed their intention to submit to the Council of Europe the most relevant legal acts which they are preparing to implement the 2004 Law “On Municipal Service”. The Group welcomes this initiative.

ARMENIA

III. Follow-up to the constitutional reform and domestic legislation

Follow-up to the constitutional reform

Questions

The Group welcomes the constitutional amendments adopted by referendum on 27 November 2005, as they constitute the basis for the fulfilment of a number of commitments undertaken by Armenia upon accession to the Council of Europe. At the same time, however, the Group notes with concern that the Council of Europe observers who followed the referendum concluded that the latter was marred by abuses. It expects that these abuses will be thoroughly investigated, in full transparency, and that all the necessary measures will be taken against those responsible for these abuses. The Group requests to be kept informed about these investigations and their results.

The Group hopes that the Armenian authorities will rapidly launch the work which will be necessary in order to implement the constitutional amendments into the Armenian domestic legal order. In this respect, the Group underlines the importance of the legislative changes to be made in three priority areas, namely (i) reforming the judiciary in order to strengthen its independence, (ii) promoting local democracy and (iii) distancing the media and their regulator from public authorities so as to reinforce their independence and impartiality (see also the comments concerning local democracy above, and those on the reform of the judicial system and the regulation of the media below). The Group would like to know what specific measures the Armenian authorities intend to take for this purpose and within which time-frame. It recalls that the Council of Europe stands ready to provide assistance in this process.

Reply

For more detailed information on the investigation, please see Attachment I.

The list of laws to be amended and new laws to be adopted as a result of the constitutional amendments, as well as its timetable, was discussed with the Government. The list also covers the legislative changes in the three priority areas mentioned above (see Attachment II).

Comments on the reply

The Group has been informed that the Venice Commission has now received a request for an opinion on the draft Law on making amendments and addenda to the Law on the Constitutional Court. It will pay particular attention to its evaluation.

The Group is grateful for the information supplied concerning the investigations conducted by the office of the Prosecutor General after the constitutional referendum and would like to be kept informed about the further procedure.

The Group has noted that a number of the 67 draft laws under preparation after the constitutional referendum concern issues which are directly related to the commitments undertaken by Armenia upon accession to the Council of Europe. It therefore requests that the following drafts be sent to the Council of Europe for review in good time before their adoption by the National Assembly: 1) draft law on alternative service, as well as the corresponding draft amendments to the criminal code and the code of criminal procedure, 2) draft laws on the city of Yerevan and on amendments to the law on local self-government, 3) draft laws on amendments and additions to the law on the police and on amendments to the disciplinary code of the police, 4) draft law on amendments to the law on radio and television, 5) draft law on amendments to the law on conscience and religious organisations, 6) draft law on amendments to the law on the penitentiary service, 7) draft laws on amendments to the civil code and the civil procedure code, 8) draft law on the prosecutor’s office, 9) draft law on amendments to the law on advocacy and 10) draft law on amendments to the law on the Human Rights Defender.

Criminal Code

Questions

The Group recalls that it had previously urged the Armenian authorities to repeal the amendments made to the Criminal Code in December 2004 in order to make liable to criminal sanctions the “organisation and holding of illegal public events or other such events and public calls for involving participation in those events”, for “calls for disobedience to the decisions discontinuing an illegal public event” (Article 225bis) and for the “organisation of group activities violating public order and active participation in such activities” (Article 258bis). As indicated by the Venice Commission, these amendments make illegal and subject to criminal sanction the organisation and holding of demonstrations which should, in fact, be permitted and thus impinge on the rights of assembly and freedom of expression.

The Group welcomes the abrogation of Article 258bis following amendments made to the Criminal Code in October 2005. It urges the Armenian authorities to also abrogate Article 225bis of the Criminal Code and Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Violations. The Group underlines the importance of this matter and would like to receive information on the measures which the Armenian authorities intend to take, and within which time-frame, to follow the opinion by the Venice Commission in full.

Reply

The Armenian authorities note that the amended Constitution provides principally a new approach with regard to administrative detention, which will be reflected in relevant legislative changes.

Amendments and supplements to Article 225.1 of the Criminal Code were provided by the Law of 31 October 2005.

The mentioned Article was renamed as “Organisation and conduction of public events by the violation of the order prescribed by the law.” In accordance with this title, the provisions of the Article were revised. The Armenian authorities note that as a result of the amendments and supplements, the possibility of restricting freedom of speech and the right to organise and conduct rallies, as well as that of illegal interference by state bodies into the exercise of this right, is eliminated. In view of the necessity to protect public and state order during the conduction of mass public events, preserving Article 180.1 of the Code on Administrative Violations also proceeds.

Comments on the reply

The Group has not seen the text of the law of 31 October 2005 which has amended the Armenian Criminal Code, and in particular Article 225.1. It invites the Armenian authorities to provide this text so that the possible need for further action in this respect may be assessed by the Group.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Questions

The Group recalls that a legal expertise of the draft law on amendments and supplements to the Code of Criminal Procedure was provided by Council of Europe experts further to the Armenian authorities’ request. The written opinions were transmitted to the Minister of Justice in early September 2005, raising a number of issues such as the conditions linked to the publicity of trials, the qualification of penitentiary institutions as bodies of enquiry for crimes perpetrated in their territories, the importance of the protection of persons participating in criminal proceedings and the extension of the detention term for further study of a case file. The Group would like to know what follow-up has been given to the experts' comments. In case the draft law would have already been adopted, the Group would like to receive a copy of it for review from the point of view of the Council of Europe standards.

Reply

On 14 November 2005, the National Assembly adopted the Law on amendments and supplements to the Code of Criminal Procedure in the first reading. The Armenian authorities look forward to the final adoption of the Law during the spring session.

The Ministry of Justice has received the conclusions of the Council of Europe experts on this draft law. Part of these recommendations and comments have been taken into account and included in project submitted to the National Assembly for the second reading.

Amendments and supplements concerning the protection of participants in criminal procedure in the aforementioned draft submitted for the second reading were removed, taking into account that following an initiative by a member of Parliament, Mr. R. Petrosyan, a law concerning these issues and regulating protection in detail is put into circulation.

After the adoption of the Law “On amendments and supplements to the RA Criminal Procedure Code”, it will be sent to the Council of Europe for expertise from the point of view of its compliance with European standards.

Comments on the reply

The Group welcomes the consideration paid by the Armenian authorities to the comments formulated by the Council of Europe experts but notes at the same time that it is not clear from the reply which recommendations made by these experts have not been taken into account and why. Accordingly, the Group requests that the final draft be transmitted to the Council of Europe for further expertise in good time before its adoption by Parliament.

The thorough study of the question of the protection of persons participating in criminal proceedings is welcomed. The Group reiterates the willingness of the Council of Europe to provide further expert assistance on this important issue.

Law on the Police

Questions

On 1-2 March 2005, a meeting was organised in Yerevan to present the conclusions of the legal expertise carried out by Council of Europe experts on the draft law on the organisation of the police. At this meeting, attended by high police officials, high representatives from different Ministries as well as by the Chair of the committee on defence, security and home affairs of the Armenian Parliament, it appeared that the draft law submitted for expertise to the Council of Europe had in the meantime been amended on a number of important aspects regarding the organisation of the police, its mission, control of the police and its relations with other institutional partners. Subsequently, the Council of Europe proposed to carry out an additional expertise on the draft law, taking into account the various amendments. A legal expertise was also proposed on the Code of Ethics and discipline of the police, which was about to enter into force. Since then, the Secretariat has received no request to follow-up.

During the visit of a delegation of the Group to Yerevan in June 2005, the Minister of Justice informed this delegation that draft amendments to the law on police were under preparation and that they would be sent to the Council of Europe for review after their first reading by the National Assembly, in the autumn. The Group wishes to know where the situation stands regarding these draft amendments and when they will be sent to the Council of Europe for evaluation.

Reply

The draft Law on Amendments and Additions to the Law on Police was not submitted to the National Assembly for discussion in 2005, and as a result was not sent to the Council of Europe experts for additional expertise.

The draft Law on Amendments and Additions to the Law on Police is currently included in the extended agenda of the National Assembly. The draft will be discussed in spring 2006. In case of adoption of the draft in the first reading, it will be sent for additional expertise. During the elaboration of the draft Law on Amendments and Additions to the Law on Police, the Council of Europe experts’ recommendations made during the seminar organised by the Council of Europe on 1-2 March 2005 in Yerevan were taken into account.

The Law on Approving the Code of Behaviour of the Police, which also contains rules of ethics of police officers, entered into force on 28 May 2005, but has not yet been sent to the Council of Europe for expertise.

Comments on the reply

The Group would like to receive the text of the Law on the Police currently in force and requests the Armenian authorities to also send the draft Law on Amendments and Additions to this Law to the Council of Europe for expertise in good time before its submission to Parliament. It also requests that the Law on Approving the Code of Behaviour of the Police is sent to the Council of Europe for review.

ARMENIA

IV. Functioning of the judicial system, the prison system and conditions of imprisonment

Judicial reform

The group also recalls that during a meeting held in Yerevan on 24-25 March 2005, the Council of Europe experts acknowledged the important efforts made by the Armenian authorities in drafting the law on the High School of Justice. At the same time, some important suggestions for critical changes were made regarding some specific articles (topics) of the draft Law. It was also underlined that, alongside the experts’ recommendations, the Armenian authorities should take due account of the Council of Europe standards concerning the training of judges. However, the Armenian authorities indicated that the adoption of the constitutional amendments was an essential pre-requisite to progress in the amendment of the Law according the opinion of the Council of Europe experts.

Following the adoption of the constitutional amendments, the Council of Europe stands ready to organise a meeting on the revised version of the draft law as soon as possible, so that the text is finalised in accordance with the Council of Europe standards. For this purpose, the Group asks the Armenian authorities to send the revised draft version on the draft Law on the High School of Justice, as amended in the light of the opinion of the Council of Europe experts.

The Group also calls on the Armenia authorities to step up co-operation with the Council of Europe in relation to the preparation of amendments to the laws on the judicial system, on the council of judges and on the status of judges. It asks the Armenian authorities to indicate what steps they intend to take for this purpose and within which time-frame.

Comments

The Group has been informed that the Armenian Court of Cassation has requested the Council of Europe to carry out an expert evaluation of the draft Law on the Judicial Code currently under preparation. It welcomes this request and hopes that appropriate follow-up will be given to the conclusions of this evaluation. The Group would appreciate being kept informed of the measures taken for this purpose.

Prison system

Questions

In April 2004, a delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) carried out a visit to Armenia to collect information concerning the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the course of or following demonstrations in Yerevan. A report on the visit was subsequently submitted to the Armenian authorities. The Group urges the Armenian authorities to authorise publication of the Committee's report on this visit.

More recently, a need assessment visit to the Prison Service in Armenia was made by Council of Europe experts from 3 to 8 October 2005. The Group requests to be kept informed in due course about the follow-up which will be given by the Armenian authorities to the report which will be sent to them following this visit.

Reply

The report prepared as a result of the expert visit has not yet been sent to the Armenian authorities. When received, it will be studied and respective measures proceeding from the report will be undertaken. In particular, possible recommendations and comments will be taken into account in the “Long-term development programme of penitentiary service” being elaborated by the Ministry of Justice.

The Armenian authorities have already launched work on the publication of the CPT report.

Comments on the reply

The Group has been informed that the report on the need assessment visit was sent to the Armenian authorities in English mid-February and that this document was translated into Armenian and made available for the Prison Management Programme Meeting which was held in Strasbourg on 30/31 March 2006. At that meeting, a further Action Plan was adopted and will be transmitted the Armenian authorities in the next few weeks.

The Group calls on the Armenian authorities to implement the recommendations included in the need assessment report and to continue to actively co-operate with the Council of Europe on the basis of the new Action Plan.

As regards the publication of the CPT report, the Group welcomes the fact that work has now been launched for this purpose. It expects that the publication will take place very soon and requests to be kept informed.

ARMENIA

V. Freedom of the media, status of NGOs and freedom of religion

Freedom of the media

Questions

When considering the Group’s last progress report on 21 September 2005, the Committee of Ministers “reaffirmed the need to promote media freedom and pluralism, and also impartiality and independence of the public media, as basic conditions of genuine democracy.”

As concerns the regulatory authority for the broadcasting sector, the Group stresses the importance of revising, at the earliest opportunity, the Law on Television and Radio in accordance with the amendments to the Constitution so that the members of the National Commission for Television and Radio are selected and appointed in a democratic and transparent manner based on merit, and can be dismissed only according to precise rules, for grounds and according to a procedure which avoids placing the Commission at risk of political or other interference. In this respect, the Group recalls that the Venice Commission recommended that the members of the National Commission should not be active members of political parties. The Group requests to be kept informed of the measures which the Armenian authorities will take for this purpose and reiterates that the Council of Europe is willing to provide assistance in this context.

Reply

The National Commission on Television and Radio has informed that the discussion by the Government of the draft decree providing for absolute compliance of legislation with the Constitution is currently under way. Bringing the Law on TV and Radio into compliance with the Constitution is also included in the schedule of those actions. From the procedural point of view, the process of bringing into compliance is under discussion in the context of an agreement with the Venice Commission. Taking into consideration that the process is limited by March 2007, when three vacancies of the Commission should be occupied, it would be reasonable to create legislative mechanisms of the appointment until the end of 2006.

Comments on the reply

The Group is pleased to note that the process to align the Law on Television and Radio with the revised Constitution has started and expects this process to further reinforce the independence and impartiality of the National Commission for Radio and Television, in line with the Council of Europe standards. It calls on the Armenian authorities to work closely with the Council of Europe experts in this context and to submit for review any draft law that will emerge from the ongoing discussion, in good time before submitting this draft to the National Assembly for adoption. The Group would also like to be kept regularly informed of the progress made on this matter.

Questions

Furthermore, the Group would like to know where the situation stands regarding the revision of the Law on Radio and Television which was launched in March 2005 by the National Commission on Television and Radio and the Standing Committee on Science, Education, Culture and Youth of the National Assembly. In case the amendments have not yet been adopted, the Group requests that they are sent to the Council of Europe, for review from the point of view of its standards, in good time before their submission to the National Assembly. In case the amendments have already been adopted, the Group request that the amended law be submitted to the Council of Europe for review.

As concerns the public media, the Groups reiterates the necessity to ensure that the programmes of Armenian Public Television and Radio, and in particular their news programmes, fairly present facts and events and allow for the expression of a diversity of views and opinions, in line with the Council of Europe standards concerning the independence and impartiality of public service broadcasting. The Group would like to know what specific measures may have been taken or are planned for this purpose, including regarding the independence of the Council of Public Radio and Television. In this respect, the Group recalls that the way in which the members of this Council are appointed is currently at variance with the Council of Europe standards.

Reply

Article 19 of the Law on Television and Radio precisely provides guarantees for the independence of TV and Radio companies, according to which “interference with the activities of TV- and Radio Companies by state bodies, officials, political parties, NGOs and other legal and physical entities is prohibited”.

The last paragraph of Article 29 of the Law states that “the Council of Public Television and Radio of the RA acts in accordance with this Law, its Statute and other legal acts and is independent within the framework of its competence”.

Article 31 of the Law also guarantees the independence of the Council members, according to which they cannot be dismissed until the end of the service in their offices, except in cases provided by the law.

According to amendments made in 2003 to Article 31 of the Law, members of the Council are appointed by the President of the Republic on a competitive basis, which gives an opportunity to any person meeting the requirements of the law to take part in the competition and be appointed as a member of the Council of Public Television and Radio.

Comments on the reply

The Group is grateful for these explanations but notes that, unfortunately, the reply does not respond to its questions concerning the ongoing revision of the Law on Television and Radio. It therefore reiterates these questions. The Group also notes that in addition to the legislative provisions aimed to secure the independence of Armenian Public Television and Radio, it is equally important that its day-to-day programmes abide by the principles of pluralism, fairness and impartiality, in particular when these programmes address matters of public interest. The Group would like to know what concrete measures have possibly been taken by either the management or supervisory organs of Armenian Public Television and Radio to ensure respect for these fundamental principles. If no such measures are in place, the Group believes that these organs should pay particular attention to this issue and would be interested to hear their views on this matter.

Questions

As regards the private media, the Group recalls the concerns which it has repeatedly expressed regarding the refusal by the National Commission on Television and Radio to grant any licence to A1+ and the absence of proper motivation of these repeated refusals. The Group asks once again what measures are envisaged by the Armenian authorities in order to remedy this situation.

Reply

The Law on Television and Radio was amended on 29 December 2003. According to these amendments, the Commission is obliged to profoundly motivate all its decisions on the granting, refusal to grant and expiry of licences. In this regard, the Commission has since then motivated all its decisions. Thus, in case of participation by A1+ in any subsequent tender, the proper motivation of the Commission’s decision will be fully guaranteed.

Comments on the reply

The Group reiterates that pluralism of the electronic media, including at the nationwide level, is essential, notably in the perspective of the major electoral consultations which are due to take place in Armenia in the coming years. It has learnt that A1+ has applied for a radio licence in the context of a new tender and that a decision on this will be taken on 25 May. The Group will follow this matter with particular attention. The Groups welcomes the fact that on 4 May, the Armenian government allocated new premises to A1+, thus putting an end to the question of the relocation of the offices of the company.

Beyond the specific case of A1+, the Group would also like to receive further detailed information regarding how in practice the Commission reaches a motivated decision and how it presents and explains such a decision to applicants, especially those applicants whose applications are rejected.

Law on rallies

Questions

The Group welcomes the fact that the amendments to the law on rallies adopted by the National Assembly of Armenia on 4 October 2005 have incorporated most of the recommendations made by the Venice Commission, even though, according to the Venice Commission experts, “the law continues to be excessively detailed” and leaves to public authorities a wide margin of discretion to impose restrictions or prohibit demonstrations. The Group underlines the necessity of ensuring that on a daily basis, the law is implemented by public authorities, and in particular law-enforcement bodies, including at the local level, in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Reply

By the amendments made in 2005to the Law on assembly, meetings, rallies and demonstrations, the Republic of Armenia not only aims at accomplishing the comments and recommendations of Venice Commission experts, but also at providing legal possibilities adequate to the current public and political environment of the Republic of Armenia, in order to prevent public events conducted with violence of the order prescribed by the law from turning into violation or infringement of public or state order.

The Republic of Armenia is ready to review its legislation on public events parallel to democratic developments. At the same time, in accordance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, the application of the provisions of the law will be consecutively realised.

Comments on the reply

In line with its previous comments on the importance of ensuring a proper implementation of the law on rallies, the Group would like to stress that freedom of assembly is not merely a question of preventing potentially violent demonstrations, but of enabling the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly by members of the public. The Group would urge the authorities to bear this in mind in connection with the implementation of the relevant national laws and regulations. The Group would be grateful if the Armenian authorities could provide information on the first months of implementation of the law (any recent data about how many requests for organising public events have been filed, for example in Yerevan, how many have been refused and on what grounds would be appreciated).

The Group welcomes the authorities readiness to review the legislation from the point of view of its conformity with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Should the authorities decide to embark on the revision of the legislation in the light of the conclusions of this review, the Group would like to be kept informed of any such initiative, so as to be able to evaluate its compliance with the Convention.

Freedom of religion

Questions

The Group has received reports on alleged persecutions against members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Armenia. It recalls that freedom of religion is one of the fundamental freedoms which Armenia is bound to respect as a Party to the European Convention on Human Rights. It expects the Armenian authorities to take all necessary measures in order to ensure respect for freedom of religion, in particular by public officials. It would like to hear the views of the Armenia authorities on this matter, including regarding any such measures.

Reply

The Department for National Minorities and Religion Issues of the Government, which is the state authorised body on the issue of religion, was informed about the persecution of members of the Armenian association of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church from the questionnaire, though it has permanently been working and co-operating with the above-mentioned religious organisation in a spirit of mutual trust.

In order to clarify the details of the information, the head of the Armenian Association of the ecclesiastic council of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Mr Vigen Khachatryan, was invited to the Department for National Minorities and Religion Issues on 23 June 2006. According to his assertions, Ms Alleta Baghdagoulyan, member of the Adventist Church and school teacher in the Akhlatyan village of the Syunik marz, alleged that she had been persecuted by the director of the school, Mr G. Hakobyan, because of her religious adherence. The official statement for A. Baghdagoulyan’s discharge is her systematic unvalid absence of work by the order of the school director. The Head of the Adventist Church also informed that A. Baghdagoulyan missed her work on Saturdays to participate in religious ceremonies after declining the request by the school director to give her day-off on Saturdays by the schedule. According to the information provided by V.Khachatryan, neither A. Baghdagoulyan assuming her right to free conscience and religion to be violated, nor the Adventist Church applied to any state body, including the state authorised body on religious issues, before applying to the Council of Europe.

After detailed study of the existing material on the above-mentioned issue, the Department for National Minorities and Religion Issues has decided to make a comprehensive analysis to resolve the problem, and, in particular, to obtain more specific information on the real reasons of the order of the director of the Akhlatyan school of the Syunik marz on A. Baghdagoulyan’s discharge, following which respective measures will be taken.

Comments on the reply

The Group welcomes the approach adopted by the Armenian authorities and hopes that this issue will be resolved to everybody’s satisfaction.

Law on Alternative Service

Questions

The Group recalls that, when considering its last progress report on 21 September 2005, the Committee of Ministers “emphasised the importance of reforms still to be completed concerning amendment of the law on alternative service”. It also recalls that during the last visit of a delegation of the Group to Yerevan in June 2005, the Minister of Justice indicated that amendments to the law on alternative service were under preparation by the Ministry of Defence.

The Group would like to know where these draft amendments now stand and requests that they are sent to the Council of Europe, together with the amendments already adopted on 22 November 2004, for review.

The Group attaches all the more importance to this matter that it has received worrying reports indicating that the law, and the administrative practice concerning its implementation, is such that there are cases in which objectors would rather serve prison sentences than perform alternative service. The Group would like to hear the views of the Armenian authorities on these allegations.

Reply

The referendum on amendments to the Constitution was held on 27 November 2005. Taking into account the fact that laws should arise from and comply with the Constitution, the process of making amendments and additions to the Law on Alternative Service has been temporarily suspended for objective grounds, pending the results of the referendum.

Following the amendments made to the Constitution as a result of the referendum, the elaboration of the draft Law on Amendments and Additions to the Law on Alternative Service restarted and it will be submitted for discussion after completion.

Comments on the reply

The Group welcomes the information that the Law on Alternative Service is in the process of being amended. In that context, the Group once again draws the attention of the Armenian authorities to the Council of Europe guidelines which require a “genuine alternative service of clearly civilian nature, which should be neither deterrent nor punitive in character.” [Recommendation 1518 (2001) par. 5.iv., cf. Resolution 377 (1967) C.3., Recommendation 816 (1977)]. Consequently, any practice under which the performance of alternative service takes place only in the context of military forces would be contrary to these guidelines. The 1987 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers in which are set out the minimum basic principles concerning conscientious objection confirms: “Alternative service, if any, shall be in principle civilian and in the public interest.” [Recommendation No. R (87) 8 par. 9.] The quoted recommendation provides for the possibility of unarmed service only “in addition to civilian service” .

It follows from these guidelines that there should be a clear civilian alternative to military service open to conscientious objectors. Furthermore, the excessive duration of alternative service (42 months compared to 24 months of compulsory military service) violates the principles set out by the Council of Europe. The procedure of granting the right of alternative service should not be subordinate to military authorities. It also seems that the right to be registered as a conscientious objector at any time (also after the military call-up) is not respected.

The Group expects that the new revised Law on Alternative service will incorporate all the Council of Europe standards set out in the guidelines and that any draft will be sent to the Council of Europe Secretariat for comments in good time before its examination by the National Assembly.

Order N° 8-A

Questions

The Group recalls that it had expressed concerns regarding the fact that Order N° 8-A appears to contradict some commitments which Armenia has undertaken when becoming a Party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Group reiterates its request that the Armenian authorities indicate what measures they intend to take in order to remedy this situation.

Reply

The Police of the Republic of Armenia states that Order N8 of the Head of the Police dated 13January 2004 does not contradict the commitments undertaken by Armenia on becoming party to the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular concerning freedom of religion.

In accordance with the second part of Article 26 of the Constitution, restrictions are only possible in cases stipulated by law, if it is necessary for public security, health, morality and the protection of others’ rights and freedoms. According to the 7^th Point of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law on Service in Police, freedom of religion of police officers is restricted, i.e. police officers have no right to be a member of any political party, public-political, non-governmental organisation (except for scientific, cultural, sport, hunting, veteran and other similar organisation based on the general interests), including religious organisations, trade unions, to use their official position in the interest of political parties, public, including religious unions, to advocate any attitude to them, as well as to realise any other or religious activity when implementing their official duties.

The above-mentioned Order N8 of the Head of the Police was adopted to regulate the situations resulting from the 7^th Point of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law on Service in Police. The Order does not restrict any rights of police officers; hence, it is not appropriate to speak about any illegal restriction of human rights.

Comments on the reply

The Group notes the reply of the Armenian authorities. It draws the authorities’ attention to the fact that it will be for the European Court of Human Rights itself to determine if the order is implemented in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights, should any applications be lodged with the Court on this issue.

ARMENIA

VII. Nagorno-Karabakh

Questions

The discussions between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan met with encouraging progress during the year 2005, with 5 meetings of both Ministers and a range of separate meetings with the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group. They allowed the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group to outline the basic principles of a future framework for a political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Several parameters are under discussion: the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, arrangements for the return of displaced persons, security guarantees, rehabilitation of the territories, normalisation of relations between the two countries, etc. These focused exchanges are taking place in a constructive atmosphere.

A fact-finding visit has been made by the OSCE to the occupied territories at the instruction of the Co-Chairs. The task of the eight international experts (two Germans, one of whom was heading the mission, one Italian, one American, one Russian, one Frenchman, one Swede and one Finn) was to visit the occupied Azerbaijani territories and investigate whether they had been colonised, and if so, to what extent. The report on this visit was presented by the Co-Chairs to the OSCE Permanent Council on 17 March 2005.

The Group welcomes the frequency of contacts between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Ministers for Foreign Affairs, as well as of meetings of the Presidents of both countries (two meetings in 2005, in Warsaw – May 2005 – and Kazan – August 2005) under the aegis of the OSCE. The Group wholeheartedly supports the mediation efforts of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group.

It reminds the Presidents of Armenian and Azerbaijan that they undertook, when they joined the Council of Europe, to make every effort to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully.

It therefore expects the Presidents to give a clear signal of their determination to continue on the path of negotiation and to take advantage of the work done during the last year.

The Group calls on both Presidents to prepare public opinion in their countries for peace, to refrain from the threat of using force and at last to make the compromises necessary to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is in the interests of none of the parties to maintain the present situation, which jeopardises peace, stability and prosperity in the southern Caucasus.

Reply

Armenia continues to believe, and has so stated, that all possibilities are not exhausted and is prepared to continue the peace negotiations. The involvement of the representatives of the people of Nagorno Karabakh would benefit the negotiations.

Although it was not possible for the two Presidents to solve the remaining differences at their meeting in Rambouillet, whatever had been achieved before Rambouillet, particularly at the Kazan meeting, between the presidents as well as with the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, is still valid and constitutes a solid foundation for further negotiations.

Despite the heightened rhetoric which has been heard since the Rambouillet meetings, Armenia remains committed to a peaceful resolution that will bring stability and cooperation to the region. The sooner the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh participate in the negotiations process, the sooner aided.

Comments on the reply

The Group regrets that, following the progress made towards a settlement of the conflict during the meetings of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Warsaw and Kazan last year, the parties failed to reach agreement on the principles of such a settlement at their summit meeting in Rambouillet on 10-11 February 2006.

The Group remains nonetheless convinced that 2006 offers a window of opportunity which should be seized by the two parties and that it is still possible to reach an agreement this year on the principles of a future peaceful settlement.

It reiterates its full support for the mediation conducted by the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group and recalls that, when acceding to the Council of Europe, the two countries undertook to do everything possible to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in a peaceful way. It therefore expects the Presidents of the two countries to give a clear signal of their political will to achieve such a settlement and build on the progress made last year so as to endorse the basic principles of the future settlement, as proposed by the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group.

The Group calls on the Presidents of the two countries to prepare their respective public opinion to peace and to make the compromises that are necessary to a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Maintaining the existing status quo, which threatens peace, stability and prosperity in the South-Caucasus, is in the interest of none of the parties.

ATTACHMENT I

Statement

On acceptance, registration and consideration of violations of legislation reported to the Office of the Prosecutor General, as well as regional and district offices during the Referendum of November 27, 2005 in the Republic of Armenia

By the order of Mr. A. Hovsepyan, the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia, a circular letter of the Deputy Prosecutor General G. Danielyan dated 5/30-05 was sent on November 19, 2005 to the prosecutors of provinces and Yerevan city with the assignment to inform the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Armenia about the violations of electoral legislation during the elections of local authorities on Monday of each week and the received applications and the process of the discussion of the infringements during the referendum on the “Draft of the Amendments to the Constitution of the RA” on November 27, 2005.

On October 5, 2005 by the assignment of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia a specialized committee was formed for summarizing the received information on infringements related to elections and commencing the process on received applications, reports to the Department of State Interests Protection during the elections of local self-government bodies of the RA, as well as the Referendum.

Taking into consideration the fact of addressing speeches by the representatives of the parties, as well as the Chairman of the National Assembly of the RA through the media, on December 2, 2005 notes were sent to the Chairman of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia A. Baghdasaryan, the Chairman of the National Party of Armenia S. Demirchyan, the Chairman of the “National Unity” Party A. Geghamyan, to the chief editors of daily newspapers “Azg”, “Iravunq”, “Aravot”, and “Haykakan zhamanak” with suggestion to send to the Prosecutor General all the applications, reports and other materials they had on the infringements made during the referendum to discuss them in legal order and to resolve by results the issue of the responsibility of the persons making the violations. Similar solicitation was also proposed to the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Armenia G. Azaryan.

At the moment of summarization of the above-mentioned solicitations the only reply was received from the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission of the RA, informing that organizations with observation mission had registered violations only in 4 polling stations. The representative of the “National Unity” Party also responded to the solicitation, but did not mention any concrete fact (details are presented below).

The summary shows that the prevailing part of the materials both received by the Office of the Prosecutor General and published by the media lacks for containing any specific infringement fact. In general, they are just abstract opinions aimed at realization of the opposition parties’ political goals. It is typical that the same person applied to the General Prosecutor’s Office with different notes just to create certain number of protests. Moreover, the majority of the notes contain abstract displeasures irrespective of the certain violation.

Reports and applications of legislation violations submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor General, as well as the regional and district offices as of January 20, 2006, as well as materials published by the media examined on the initiative of the General Prosecutor’s Office are presented below:

1. Ruben Torosyan’s report N653 dated October 23, 2005 was registered in the General Prosecutor’s Office on October 25, 2005.

The author of the report mentioned that “Haykakan zhamanak” daily in its publication N186 has put an information that the Central Bank of the RA breaching the requirements of the 7^th Part of the Article 21 of the RA Law on Referendum has not by that date submitted reports to the Central Electoral Commission of the RA on the financial actions of campaigning foundations.

In his report R. Torosyan has also mentioned that in accordance with the Article 18 of the RA Law on the Central Bank of the Republic of Armenia the Head of the Central Bank is responsible for the mentioned functions to be realized by the Bank and as a result of not executing his duties the Head of the Bank had caused considerable damage to the organizations and persons, inter alia, his “constitutional right on free participation in referendum”.

The above-mentioned facts R.Torosyan qualified as an official clumsiness by the Head of the Central Bank the Republic of Armenia and requested to bring him to criminal liability in accordance with the Article 315 of the RA Criminal Code.

Taking into account that there is no any fact of criminal offence in the report, on the basis of materials prepared by the Department of State Interests Protection of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the RA, on November 14, 2005 decision was made to reject the institution of criminal case because of the absence of criminal evidence.

2. On November 15, 2005 Armen Hovhannisyan and others’ application was registered in the RA General Prosecutor’s Office on the shortcomings existing in the “The Draft of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia” and “Referendum 2005, 10 questions on the Amendments to the Constitution, November 27, 2005” booklet.

On November 14, 2005 the application with its dated note was sent for the discussion to the Yerevan city Prosecutor’s Office. As a result of the discussion it was clarified to the author of the application that the issue raised has nothing in common with the violations of referendum legislation and it does not contain any indications of crime and the shortcomings related to the edition of the booklet can be challenged by civil legal order.

3. On November 23, 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Armenia registered Ruben Torosyan’s report N752 dated November 20, 2005 asserting that the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission exceeding his official position instead of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Armenia had rejected by his individual decision the application of the “Deputy Club of Supreme Council” NGO on registration as an observer organization.

The author of the report asked to consider it as a report from legal entity and commence the process on it in accordance with the Article 178 of the RA Code on Criminal Procedure.

During the discussion it was discovered that the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Armenia had acted in compliance with law as well as in due order clarified to the author of the report the legal grounds of his decision.

By the results of the discussion on December 8, 2005 decision was made to reject the institution of criminal case because of the absence of criminal evidence.

4. On the 1^st of December, 2005 Ruben Torosyan’s report N787 dated November 30, 2005 was registered in the RA General Prosecutor’s Office, informing that violating the requirement of the Point “b” of the Part 1 of the Article 23 of the RA Law on Referendum the Chairman of the RA Central Electoral Commission had not allowed him as an observer to acquaint with the reports on the campaigning foundations financial actions provided by the RA Central Bank to the RA Central Electoral Commission and get their copies.

The author of the report asked to consider it as a report from physical entity and commence the process on it in accordance with the Article 177 of the RA Code on Criminal Procedure.

As a result of the discussion, it was clarified to the author of the application that his report did not contain any fact of criminal offence, and the situation described was in compliance with the provisions of legislation.

5. On the 1^st of December, 2005 in the RA General Prosecutor’s Office Ruben Torosyan’s report N761 dated November 27, 2005 was registered, informing that during the operative consultation concerning the members of electoral commissions the RA Prosecutor General and his deputy exceeding their official positions had threatened to bring to criminal liability the members of electoral commissions, who would not participate in the sittings of the commissions and avoid the execution of their official duties.

In his report R.Torosyan mentioned that the RA Prosecutor General and his deputy had caused a considerable damage to the voters’ constitutional right of free participation in referendum and asked to consider it as a report on crime from a physical entity according to the Article 177 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code and commence the process on it.

Consequently it was explained to the author of the report that the latter perverted well-known facts and, in fact, the operative consultation, which was completely broadcast, referred to giving respective instructions to the Prosecutor’s Office employees proceeding from the law.

6. On the 1^st of December, 2005 the RA General Prosecutor’s Office registered Ruben Torosyan’s report N781 dated November 29, 2005, informing that the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities observer delegations statement that “the Constitutional Referendum in Armenia in general met the international standards, but with serious abuses” was false and in accordance with the Article 177 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code asked to consider it as a report on crime received from a physical entity and discuss it.

The author of the report was explained that he perverted the obvious facts and accused the international institutions grounding on the not-existing, fictitious facts.

7. On November 29, 2005 the RA General Prosecutor’s Office registered a report N12-741-05 dated November 28, 2005 from the Prosecutor of Malatia-Sebastia communities of the city of Yerevan, notifying that on the 24^th of November, 2005 at about 18:30 during the public meeting of the opposition in the South-West of Yerevan, near the statue of Zoravar Andranik, unknown persons, violently breaking public order had showed obvious disregard to people, which was accompanied by using force against the reporter Tatevik Nalbandyan.

Based on the given facts and according to the 1^st Point of the 3^rd Part of the Article 258 of the RA Criminal Code (evil-oriented hooliganism), on the 26^th of November, 2005 a criminal case was instituted in the Malatia Investigation Department of the Police.

8. The article “Numbers were drawn again” published in “Aravot” daily newspaper on November 28, 2005 mentioned that “NDU” office had informed that Aliza Avetisyan, “NDU” observer of the polling station N13/04 of Erebuni community, had reported that at about 12:30 nearly 20 persons entered the polling station and getting already arranged stamped bundle of voting-papers immediately filled it in the ballot-box. A. Avetisyan had tried to prevent it by taking the ballot-box, but she was forcefully moved away, after which she left the polling station. According to the information provided by the observer, only 18 persons had voted in the mentioned polling station by that time.

The article under supervision was sent to discussion to the Prosecutor’s Office of Erebuni and Nubarashen communities of Yerevan.

During discussion and by gained proofs it was discovered that the published information did not correspond to the reality.

By the prepared materials on above-mentioned facts a decision was made in the Prosecutor’s Office of the communities to reject the institution of the criminal case.

9. In the article “Who has ever seen any advantage from local observer”of “Hayots ashkharh” daily published on November 30, 2005 it was mentioned that during the press-conference the head of the non-governmental organization “The choice is yours” Haroutyun Hambardzumyan told that at 14:00 in the polling station N10/28 of the Centre community of Yerevan (school after Nicol Aghbalyan) a group of young men with the assistance of three local electoral commission members had surrounded the ballot-box, closed the field of vision of the present persons and filled in the ballot-box. Cases of filling in had also been registered in the electoral stations N10/29, 9/13 and 9/14 of the Centre community.

The article under supervision was sent to discussion to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Centre and Nork-Marash communities of Yerevan.

During discussion and by gained proofs it was discovered that the information published did not correspond to the reality. By the prepared materials on above-mentioned facts of the article a decision was made in the Prosecutor’s Office of the communities to reject the institution of the criminal case.

10. In the article “The future of the homeland is being sold, the price is contractual” of “Hayots ashkharh” daily published on November 29, 2005 it was mentioned that in the polling station N 8/5 (school after V. Zatikyan) of Malatia-Sebastia community in one minute the “Iravunq” had witnessed a state crime committed by the “RPA” representative Hrachya Haroutyunyan and a member of the committee Narine. In that polling station observer from the “NDU” party Gohar Veziryan, noticing that nearly 200 voting-papers had been filled in, required from the Chairman of the commission Manouk Gasparyan to sign the respective note, but taking into account the instruction of the authorities to prevent the registration of any complaint, the Chairman refused to sign, assuring that such thing would not occur again.

By the way, according to local observers, the members of the commission of the polling station N8/5 were keeping stamps in their pockets and when a voter came to the station he/she had to wait until they brought the stamp. However, in the room next to the polling station Gohar Veziryan caught the “RPA” member Hrachya Haroutyunyan and Narine at the moment of offence with voting papers in their hands, marking the “yes”, folding them up and stamping.

The article under supervision was sent to discussion to the Prosecutor’s Office of Malatia-Sebastia community of Yerevan.

11. In the article “Work of art, number-drawing” of “Aravot” daily published on November 28, 2005 it was mentioned that in polling station N7/16 of Malatia-Sebastia communities there had been 200 voting-papers in the ballot-box. Meanwhile, the observer Margarita Manukyan had found out that there were 35 signatures in the list of voters. The Chairman of the local electoral commission Gegham Sargsyan did not permit to register the abuse in the registration book. After the incidence, from 8:45 untill 9:15, only 3 voters entered the polling station.

The article under supervision was sent to discussion to the Prosecutor’s Office of Malatia-Sebastia communities of Yerevan.

12. In the article “Work of art, number-drawing” of “Aravot” daily published on November 28, 2005 it was mentioned that the member of the party “Heritage” Asia Hambartsoumyan had tried to realize observation mission in Ajapnyak. During the conversation in public information centre she told that in polling stations N6/10 and N6/11 the ballot-boxes had been filled in, old people were taken to the stations by “gazels”, under age young persons were coming and voting with new passports. A. Hambartsoumyan noticed a passport the person who had already voted. Next time that person came with the court statement and told her why he was taking photos. When district authorities gathered and saw that he was taking photos of the “gazels” numbers and people taken to the polling station they started pushing him after which he left the polling station.

Тhe same article also mentioned that in the polling station N175 of Davidashen Susanna Baghdasaryan and Vram Baghdasaryan came to vote and found out that they had already voted. They were asked not to raise a clamour and vote again.

The article under supervision was sent to discussion to the Prosecutor’s Office of Ajapnyak and Davidashen communities of Yerevan.

13. The article “Persecutions were and are going on” of “Aravot” daily published on November 30, 2005 informed that the other day in the morning more than 20 policemen of Ashtarak had surrounded the house of the representative of Aragatsotn organization of “Homeland and Honor” opposition party Vardan Malkhasyan, and had brought him to the police without respective sanction. According to the facts of the editorial office he had not yet been released in the evening of November 29, 2005. As the head of the party Garnik Margaryan told he had informed about it the RA Ombudsman Larisa Alaverdyan and warned that in case of further illegal actions by the authorities, the party would react respectively.

The article under supervision was sent to discussion to the Prosecutor’s Office of Aragatsotn marz.