These are occasions human rights defenders are using to advocate the respect of human rights in Armenia, especially regarding the freedom of assembly and expression, the prohibition of torture, and the accountability for human rights violations. UN Committee against Torture will also review Armenia and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has also planed a visit of Armenia.

The Universal Periodical Review (UPR) of Armenia took place in May 2010 and was characterised by a considerable number of reviewing states highlighting concerns following the 2008 post-election violence, associated human rights violations including the excessive use of force, the continued absence of accountability and the detention of protesters characterised by the absence of judicial guarantees. Thematically, the state recommendations were consolidated around three pillars: the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, and the prohibition of torture.

In its replies to the recommendations made by reviewing states, Armenia answered that numerous recommendations are “already implemented or in the process of implementation.” This provides human rights defenders with a much more tangible framework in terms of accountability, a “tool” which should be utilized to its fullest. It especially makes the implementation framework shorter: instead of 4 years until the next review, Armenia must have already implemented some recommendations and others should be shortly since the implementation is already in process.

Freedom of assembly

A central theme throughout the UPR was the state authorities’ involvement in the 2008 post-election protests. Whilst the protests had been peaceful, violence erupted on 1 March 2008 when special police forces confronted the protesters and 10 people died, including one policeman. The use of force by police was excessive, disproportionate and induced a state of emergency. Moreover, Armenia has failed to hold those responsible accountable.

Significantly, Armenia considers most of the recommendations relating specifically to the 2008 election to be already implemented, or to be in the process of implementing. This comprises the provision for an independent and credible investigation into the 10 deaths following the events of 1 March 2008 and the intensification of efforts to provide for reparations and punish those responsible.

When this new category of recommendations is combined with specificity, human right defenders are provided with a means of holding the government accountable. Moreover, in this case whilst the “intensification of efforts” is somewhat vague and open to interpretation, the implementation of the trial monitoring report, and the provision of independent and credible investigations are explicit, visible, and can be monitored.

Armenia also commits to “review” its legislation, to ensure that “no arbitrary impediments are imposed with respect to exercising the right to freedom of assembly” and that respect for the freedom of assembly in line with its international obligations. However, in light of the 2008 post-election violence and the proclaimed state of emergency, the government dramatically amended the Law on Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations, requiring that municipalities be informed — and grant permission — for demonstrations. This has severely impacted freedom of assembly and has been extensively documented by the Armenien Human Rights Defender in the report Right to Peaceful Demonstrations. The most explicit of the recommendations by states at the UN Council was put forward by Spain: “Guarantee freedom of peaceful assembly, and amend Article 9.4.3 of the Law on meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations.” However, this recommendation will be examined by Armenia but did not yet enjoy its support. This is particularly worrying as it undermines the supposed support of Armenia for ensuring the right to freedom of assembly which will not be achieved without this law being amended. In its General Comment 29, the UN Human Rights Committee has explicitly reaffirmed that the aim of derogation is to restore normality and that measures taken must be temporary.

Freedom of Expression — ignorance of ECHR judgement

A closely associated and similarly consistent theme throughout the UPR was freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is imperative in order to monitor, and ensure respect, for all human rights and freedoms. This right was denied to opposition protesters, activists and journalists in 2008 whom were attacked during the outbreak of violence. Tand this is reflected in recommendations expressing the importance of a protection of the ed civil society.

In the UPR, the reviewing states draw special attention to the state-censored media particularly the denial of a license to A1+ broadcasting company because it provides a more tangible example of the state violating its obligations regarding this right. Moreover, reviewing states referred to the judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the Armenian government was in violation of its human rights obligations, as a means to exert pressure on the Armenian government to uphold the right to freedom of expression. Armenia considers that the “implementation of the judgement of the European Court on Human Rights that found the Government’s denial of a license to A1+ broadcasting company to be in violation of Armenia’s human rights obligations” to be already implemented or in the process of implementation. Of course this has been delayed due to the suspension of licensing by the National Assembly until the digital switch over is complete.

Armenia asserts its support for ensuring the full respect for the right to freedom of expression particularly investigative journalism, and the instigation of a fair and transparent process for issuing broadcasting licenses and ensuring the independence of broadcasting regulatory bodies. However, Armenia only conceded to examine waiving the moratorium on granting licenses to radio and television broadcasters and the 2008 amendments to the Law on Television and Radio, saying that “concrete steps” are taken to meet this obligation.

Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

Significantly, Armenia considers the “review of the definition of torture so that it fully complies with that set out in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” to be already implemented or in the process of implementation. This represents a crucial first step to increasing accountability for such violations and is further reinstated in other recommendations occupying the same category such as ensuring that allegations of ill treatment by police are investigated and perpetrators held accountable. Considering the prevalence of allegations of abuse whilst in custody, including a report by the Helsinki Association of Armenia which revealed four cases of torture of opposition supporters in custody in 2009 related to the investigation into the March 2008 events, this is an extremely important. Armenia considers itself to have implemented or be in the process of implementing measures that ensure ill-treatment is prohibited along the same lines as torture.

Moreover, judicial guarantees such as the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard have increasingly been recognised did also come up in the review. Whilst “strengthening fair-trial safeguards” is admittedly vague, the “non-admissibility before the court of any evidence obtained through torture or ill-treatment” is more explicit. Significantly, both recommendations are considered already implemented or in the process of implementation.

Likelihood of accountability

Whilst While the UPR for Armenia was characterized by vague proposals open to interpretation and manipulation, the category for recommendations “already implemented or in the process of implementation” increases the likelihood of accountability for abuses relating to the 2008 elections. Human rights defenders now need to concentrate on the recommendations included in this category and hold the government accountable to its assertion that they are actually “already implemented, or in the process of being implemented.” Furthermore, in promoting accountability for abuses perpetrated in relation to the 2008 post-election violence this draws attention to the continuation of certain laws that infringe human rights, which were implemented during the state of emergency.

The chance human rights defenders have are the different other UN reviews of Armenia, putting the country in the spotlight of the international community:

 

Documents:

  • UPR outcome report 2010
  • CAT State Report 2010
  • Administration of justice (FIDH position paper, 2010)
  • Helsinki Association 2009 Report

    • Defenders are not protected but are temporarily free…

    In Armenia human rights defenders are unprotected and obey the authorities, as well as are subjected to pressure and attacks of some media ruled by them, – said the coordinator of Helisniki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor, Artur Sakunts, during the interview to NEWS.am. 

    “The thing that an attempt upon Mikayel Danielyan’s life may occur, or another human rights defender, Arshaluys Hakobyan, may be subjected to violence in the police department and then be arrested, and those who committed the violance may remain unpunished proves that human rights defenders in Armenia are vulnarable. That in some media a certain number of human rights defenders may be called  ‘fifth echelon’ ,  ‘implementors of coloured revolution’, ‘threats for the national security’ and so on, also proves that human rigths defenders are  unprotected. There can’t  be a word about protection, we are just temporarily free”, mentioned Sakunts.

    Read further

    UN Special Rapporteur in Armenia

    The UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, is undertaking her first fact-finding mission to Armenia from 14-18 June 2010, in what also is the first visit to the country by a UN human rights envoy since 2000.

    On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Armenian members of the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders (Helsinki Association for Human Rights, Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly Vanadzor, and Socioscope),  met with the Special Rapporteur. They were accompanied by Georgian members of the South Caucasus Network and a staff member of HRHF.

    The NGOs alerted the Special Rapporteur on the critical situation

    The Special Rapporteur also met with different other civil society organisations during her stay in Armenia, alongwhich PINK, the Wives of Political Prisoners, Democracy Today, and the Women Ressource Centre, all also members of the South Caucasus Network.

    In her concluding statement on 18 June 2010, Margaret Sekaggya stressed that "prompt, thorough and transparent investigations of all human rights violations are crucial to create a safe and enabling environment in which human rights defenders can carry out their activities. One example of violations which have not been duly investigated includes the tragic events and killings which took place following the 2008 Presidential elections. Investigations need to be undertaken with a view to ensuring meaningful and effective prosecution in compliance with international legal standards. I would like to remind the Government of Armenia of its obligations in this regard under the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders."

    HRHF’ support in international advocacy

    Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF) is working to support Armenia’s independent civil society to strengthen its international advocacy effort. Within the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders, HRHF has the aim to support its Armenian members to follow-up to the UPR nationally and to use international mechanisms to give visibility to ongoing human rights violations in Armenia and to show that the government is not willing to implement its international obligations.

    The review of Armenia at the UN Committee against Torture will be crucial. HRHF will support capacity-building and advocacy of independent NGOs working as a coalition.

    The upcoming visit of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention will also be important and again civil society will have the chance to use a UN special procedure to bring justice to those who are detained arbitrarily.