INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION (IFOR) and CONSCIENCE AND PEACE TAX INTERNATIONAL (CPTI)

Submission to the 105 th Session of the Human Rights Committee

ARMENIA

(Military service, conscientious objection and related issues)

Updated June 2012. Contact: Derek BRETT International Fellowship of Reconciliation Main Representative to the UN, Geneva [email protected] Tel: (41) 77 462 9825

After considering the Initial Report of under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee regretted “the lack of legal provision for alternatives to military service in case of conscientious objection.” They also deplored “the conscription of conscientious objectors by force and their punishment by military courts, and the instances of reprisals against their family members.”1

As stated in Paragraph 436 of Armenia's Joint Second and Third Periodic Report a “Law on alternative service” was adopted on 12 December 2003, 2 following a commitment made on accession to the Council of Europe. The account given in the State report is not however entirely accurate; the Law concerned has not been accepted by the Council of Europe as honouring the commitment made, which was to bring in a law “in compliance with European standards”. Even after the amendments of 2004 and 2006 the alternative service offered is not of a clearly civilian nature, and the conditions, particularly the duration, are of a punitive nature.

Asked in the List of Issues what steps it intends to take to bring its legislation in this area fully into conformity with Articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant 3, Armenia reports that a draft law addressing relevant issues is currently before the National Assembly 4, but does not give enough details to confirm that all shortcomings of the existing provisions have been addressed.

Moreover, Armenia continues to imprison large numbers of conscientious objectors, overwhelmingly Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to perform both military service and the (not genuinely civilian) alternative.

This submission also raises the implications of the inclusion of compulsory military training in the school curriculum and the human rights of conscripts serving in the Armenian armed forces

1 CCPR/C/79/Add.100, 19 th November, 1998, para 18 2 CCPR/C/ARM/2-3, 22 nd November, 2010, para 436. 3 CCPR/C/ARM/Q/2, 22 nd November, 2011, para 28. 4 CCPR/C/ARM/Q/2/Add.1, 24 th April, 2012, p34 Background: Armenia's Commitments to the Council of Europe

. Armenia operates a system of obligatory military service. Male citizens between the ages of 18 and 27 are liable to 24 months military service.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE), in recommending the admission of Armenia to membership of the CoE, recorded: “The Parliamentary Assembly takes note of the letters from the President of Armenia, the speaker of the parliament, the Prime Minister and the chairmen of the political parties represented in the parliament, and notes that Armenia undertakes to honour the following commitments: (...) to adopt, within three years of accession, a law on alternative service in compliance with European standards and, in the meantime, to pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to prison terms or service in disciplinary battalions, allowing them instead to choose, when the law on alternative service has come into force, to perform non-armed military service or alternative civilian service.”5

Armenia duly acceeded to CoE membership on 1st January 2001. A Law on Alternative Service was passed on 12 th December 2003, and came into effect on 1 st July 2004. On 27 th January 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe welcomed the adoption of this law, while considering “the length of the alternative civilian service, set at forty-two months, unacceptable and excessive”, and proceeded to state “It points out that Armenia undertook on joining the Council of Europe to pardon conscientious objectors serving prison terms. It expresses its indignation at the fact that twenty or so young people who refuse to perform military service are still in prison. It therefore demands that they be released immediately by presidential pardon pending the entry into force on 1 July 2004 of the law on alternative civilian service.” 6

The first 23 persons to enrol for alternative service in Armenia started their placements early in 2005. By the end of the year, however, all 23 had withdrawn, complaining that the placements were not truly civilian in nature and that they were to all intents and purposes treated as unarmed members of the military. Twenty-two of the 23 were Jehovah's Witnesses, the other, Pavel Karavanov, was a Molokan, a member of a Russian protestant church founded in the 18 th Century, whose members are known for their pacifism, and had been excused military service in imperial days. Karavanov remains the only non- Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector in Armenia to have come to our attention.

Despite Armenia's claim that the Law on Alternative Service fulfils its accession criteria to the Council of Europe, it is clear that this Law does not meet the requirement of complying with European or international standards, and it has not been accpted by the Council of Europe itself.

In a resolution of January 2007, 7 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was “disappointed to note that the current law, as amended in 2005 and subsequently in June 2006, still does not offer conscientious objectors any guarantee of "genuine alternative service of a clearly civilian nature, which should be neither deterrent nor punitive in character", as provided for by Council of Europe standards”.

The Law was also singled out for critical comment in a speech by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe at State University on 5 th November 2007, in which he observed “The last amendments to the law do not seem to solve the problems raised in respect of the length of alternative service and the arrangements for performing it. As amended, the law still fails to 5 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Opinion No.221 of 28 th June, 2000, para 13. 6 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1361, “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia”, 27 th January 2004 7 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1532, “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia” , 23 rd January 2007 offer conscientious objectors any "genuine alternative service of a clearly civilian nature, which should be neither deterrent nor punitive in character", as provided by the Council of Europe's guidelines on this subject. For Armenia to comply with the undertaking made on accession, the law needs to be "in compliance with European standards", and this is not yet the case." 8

It is not known how many persons have completed alternative service, but a very large number of conscientious objectors have refused to accept the service as laid out in the current legislation.

Shortcomings of the 2003 Alternative Service Act

The provisions of the Alternative Service Act fail to meet accepted international standards in several respects, and none of the amendments promulgated to date have effectively addressed these shortcomings.

Under Article 14, all aspects of the arrangements are under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Applications from conscientious objectors to perform Alternative Service are assessed by the local draft commission.

The Act distinguishes “Alternative Military Service” and “Alternative Civilian Service”. Those accepted for “Alternative Civilian Service” are referred by the Military Commissariat to the Health and Social Security ministries for placement. The supposedly “civilian” service is however under close military supervision. Order No.142, issued by the Deputy Defence Minister on 20 th December 2004, ordered the Military Commissariat and the Military Police to ensure weekly military supervision of everyone performing "civilian" alternative service, and to submit monthly written reports to the Chief of the General Staff. All disciplinary breaches within alternative service are dealt with by the Military Prosecutor's Office. Those performing “civilian” service are even fed military rations.

Article 16.2 of the Act states “Citizens performing alternative service must swear an oath of allegiance before the State symbol of the Republic of Armenia in acceptance of the appropriate responsibilities.” and Article 16.3 stipulates “Those in alternative service must wear a uniform, the appearance and instructions for wearing of which shall be stipulated by the Government of the Republic of Armenia.” Apart from duties of a direct military nature, these are the two aspects of any alternative service arrangements which are most likely to offend the consciences of objectors

Had there been a deliberate intention to make the provisions unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses, the requirement to swear an oath would have been chosen, as, along with other denominations who adhere to a strict reading of the New Testament, Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to do this. The explicit requirement to wear a uniform identifying those performing alternative service should also be clearly distinguished from legitimate specifications of the clothing necessary to perform or (eg. in a hospital situation) to identify the specific assignment.

Initially, the Jehovah's Witnesses in Armenia expressed their relief that these specific provisions, both of which were problematic to them, were apparently not being stictly enforced. 9 Within months, however, the experience of conscientious objectors performing alternative service

8 War Resisters International, “Armenia: no progress for conscientious objectors”, CO Update No . 9 General Counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Evidence submitted to the OHCHR in response to the questionnaire on “best practices concerning the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service”, 1st February 2005. contradicted this.

The duration of “Military Alternative Service” is set at 36 months; that of “Civilian Alternative Service” at 42 months. These are, respectively, 1.5 and 1.75 times the length of the military service to which the objector would otherwise be liable. Such a discrepancy is discriminatory and punitive. Both the total duration of “Civilian Alternative Service”, and the extent (18 months) by which it exceeds that of military service are the longest which currently apply anywhere in the world. It will be recalled that in Foin v France the Human Rights Committee found that any discrepancy in length between military and alternative service must be justified in the individual case on “reasonable and objective criteria”10

During alternative service, conscientious objectors have no freedom of movement; even outside work hours they come under the authority of the director of the establishment to which they have been assigned. There were reports that this has been used as a further means of imposing arbitrary restrictions, in particular that some Jehovah's Witnesses have not been permitted to leave the establishment to attend religious services, in direct breach of their freedom of religion.

Current legislative proposals

In April 2011 a number of fresh amendments to the 2003 Act were laid before the national assembly. Asked for advisory opinions on the proposed revisions, both the Vienna Commission of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) criticised them as still not instituting a fully civilian service of a duration which is not punitive by comparison with military service.

Government sources claim that new amendments which fully address the criticisms voiced by the Vienna Commission and by the OSCE have now been drafted. 11 It is to be hoped that it is these latest revisions to which reference is made in the written replies 12 , but details would be welcome.

In particular, with reference to the written replies: does “the improvement of the order of discussing the applications for sending to alternative service” mean placing this decision under civilian control? Does “amending the time periods for alternative service” mean making these equal to those for military service? And will the “bodies responsible for alternative service and supervisory to the process of alternative service” be completely civilian in nature?

10 Human Rights Committee, View on Communication 666/1995, ICCPR, A/55/40 vol II (3 rd November 1999) 30 at para. 10.3 11 Corley, F. “Armenia: After Strasbourg punishment will government resolve alternative service issue “for ever”?”, Forum 18 News Service (www.f18news.org ), 1st February 2012. 12 CCPR/C/ARM/Q/2/Add.1, 24 th April, 2012, p.34 Imprisonment of conscientious objectors

All imprisonments of conscientious objectors known to CPTI have occurred under Article 327.1 of the Criminal Code, which reads “Evading a recurring call to emergency military service, or educational or military training, without a legal basis for being relieved of this service, shall incur a fine in the amount of 300 to 500 minimum wages or arrest for up to two months or imprisonment for up to two years.”

Two distinct categories can be identified. The first, before the Alternative Service Act came into force, were conscientious objectors who were imprisoned for refusing military service because there was no alternative. The second category are objectors who were sentenced after the Act came into force having refused both military service and alternative service under the Act, which they did not consider to address the grounds of their objection.

Not only did Armenia fail to implement its undertaking to pardon those conscientious objectors who had been sentenced before it was admitted to the Council of Europe, it even continued to imprison those who refused military service while the Alternative Service Law was in preparation. Despite the wording of the undertaking, no-one was allowed to postpone call-up in order to take advantage of the Alternative Service Law when it came into effect.

Armenia has recently 13 claimed that 38 conscientious objectors were pardoned when the Act was adopted. But in fact the commitment had been to pardon all conscientious objectors, and pending – not upon - the adoption of the Act. As already noted, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, while welcoming the adoption of the Act, called for the immediate release of some 20 imprisoned conscientious objectors. 14 Nevertheless, convictions and imprisonments continued. In the first four months of 2004, at least ten conscientious objectors were sentenced to imprisonment, and two others had their sentences increased on appeal. 15 Nor has there ever been any indication of retrospective pardons; as far as is known, all those imprisoned for refusing military service before any alternative was available continue to bear criminal records.

On 7th July 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided by a majority of 16 to 1 (only the Armenian judge dissenting) to overturn an earlier decision of the Court's Third Section and found the imprisonment of Vahan Bayatyan, who had in April 2001 refused on grounds of conscience to perform military service while stating his willingness to perform alternative civilian service, to be a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 16 On 10 th January 2012, referring back to the Grand Chamber's ruling in Bayatyan , the Court found the conviction and imprisonment in 2003 for draft evasion of two further declared Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors to constitute a violation of Article 9. 17

Bayatyan v Armenia was a landmark decision in the European jurisprudence, following a line similar to that taken by the Human Rights Committee in Yoon & Choi v Republic of Korea and Yung et al v Republic of Korea, namely that conscientious objection to military service was held to

13 Reply dated 31 st January 2012 to Communication from UN Special Procedures, hyperlink from A/HRC/19/44, p.64, Case No ARM/1/2011. 14 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1361, “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia”, 27 th January 2004 15 “Jehovah's Witnesses and conscientious objection to military service in Armenia”, www.jw-media.org 27 th April, 2004. 16 European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Case of Bayatyan v Armenia (Application no. 23459/03), Judgment issued on 7th July 2011 17 European Court of Human Rights, Third Section, Cases of Bukharatyan v. Armenia (Application no.37819/03), and Tsaturyan v Armenia, (Application No. 37821/03) , Judgments issued on 10 th . January 2012. constitute a manifestation of religion or belief, and the State had not shown legitimate grounds for limiting this. (In the subsequent case of Jeong et al v Republic of Korea the Human Rights Committee has gone farther, stating that conscientious objection to military service inheres in the freedom of thought conscience and religion.)

Crucially, in the Bayatyan judgment, the Court addressed the wording of Article 4 of the European Convention, which is almost identical to that in Article 8 of the ICCPR, and found that “the Travaux préparatoires confirm that the sole purpose of sub-paragraph (b) of Article 4 § 3 is to provide a further elucidation of the notion “forced or compulsory labour”. In itself it neither recognises nor excludes a right to conscientious objection and should therefore not have a delimiting effect on the rights guaranteed by Article 9.” (para 100) It noted that in state practice “at the material time there was already a virtually general consensus on the question in Europe and beyond.” (para 108). On this basis, “and in line with the “living instrument” approach,” the Court ruled unequivocally “that … Article 9 should no longer be read in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (b).”(para 109).

This judgment did not however address two of the more egregious features of Bayatyan's situation; first that the sentence had been increased on appeal, partly on the grounds that “not only does [the applicant] not accept his guilt, but he does not regret having committed the crime” and “taking into account the nature, motives and degree of social danger of the crime”, and second his allegation that the appeal proceedings were conducted in a manner designed to put pressure on him to change his religion. These complaints had been summarily dismissed at the admissibility stage. 18

Moreover, given that the facts in Bayatyan dated from before there was any alternative in Armenia to armed military service, the judgment does not directly address the shortcomings of the current situation of conscientious objectors in Armenia. There is however continuting relevance in the Court's comment that “respect on the part of the State towards the beliefs of a minority religious group like the applicant’s by providing them with the opportunity to serve society as dictated by their conscience might, far from creating unjust inequalities or discrimination as claimed by the Government, rather ensure cohesive and stable pluralism and promote religious harmony and tolerance in society.” (para 126)

Within six months of the coming into force of the Alternative Service Act, three Jehovah's Witnesses were awaiting trial for refusing both military and alternative service. 19 Since then the numbers of imprisonments have sharply increased. Moreover, in December 2005 the maximum sentence under Article 327.1 has been increased to 36 months. By May 2007, the Jehovah's Witnesses reported that 72 of their young men were imprisoned in Armenia, having refused both military service and the nominal civilian service. 20 The number imprisoned at any one time remained more or less constant for the next four years, sentences ranging from 12 months to 36 months. Full details have not been traced of those imprisoned in earlier years, but an appendix lists those known to have completed their sentences since September 2009, or still in detention at the time of writing.

The number of imprisoned conscientious objectors at any one time in Armenia is among the two or three highest totals to be found in any state in the world, and the sentences handed down are among the longest.

18 See Brett, D. “COMMENTARY: European Court of Human Rights – Out of step on conscientious objection” Forum 18 News Service , 19 th November 2009 (Written in response to the initial adverse Chamber judgement.) 19 General Counsel of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, March 2005 - supplementary response to a questionnaire from OHCHR issued in pursuance of Resolution 2002/45 of the Commission on Human Rights 20 Corley, F. “Armenia: 72 religious prisoners of conscience is a new record”, Forum 18 News Service (www.forum18.org), 2nd May 2007. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in its 2007 resolution, 21 stated that: “It is deeply concerned that, for lack of a genuine form of civilian service, dozens of conscientious objectors, most of whom are Jehovah's Witnesses, continue to be imprisoned, since they prefer prison to an alternative service not of a truly civilian nature." and urged the Armenian authorities “to pardon the young conscientious objectors currently serving prison sentences”.

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, met three of the imprisoned Jehovah's Witnesses in Artik prison in the north-western region of Shirak during his January 2011 visit to Armenia. In his report published on 9th May he called for the conscientious objectors to be freed from prison, and for a genuine civilian alternative service to be introduced. 22

On 22nd August 2011, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, together with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, and the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, sent a communication 23 to the government of Armenia regarding the “alleged arbitrary detention and harassment of members of the Jehovah's Witnesses community,” including the continued imprisonment of 72 listed Jehovah's Witnesses, plus three others believed to be in pre-trial detention, for their conscientious objection to military service.

“It has been reported,” the communication stated, that “that (these) individuals have been charged under the Armenian Criminal Code for their conscientious objection to military service on religious grounds.Despite the decision of 7 July 2011, by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bayatyan vs. Armenia (application no. 23459/03), it has been reported that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to be imprisoned for their refusal to engage in military service on religious grounds.”

The communication also gave details of a number of religious meetings and conventions of the Jehovah's Witnesses which had been ca ncelled “allegedly due to pressure from Government officials and from priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church.”

While asking for more information on the facts, and “(w)ithout expressing at this stage an opinion on the facts of the case and on whether the detention of the 72 abovementioned conscientious objectors is arbitrary or not,” the Special Procedures appealed to the Armenian Government “to take all necessary measures to guarantee their right not to be deprived arbitrarily of their liberty and to fair proceedings before an independent and impartial tribunal, in accordance with articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” and more generally “to ensure the right to freedom of religion or belief in Armenia, in accordance with articles 18 of the UDHR and of the ICCPR, respectively.” Similar appeals were made with regard to the rights of minorities and the freedom of assembly. Finally, the Armenian Government was specifically asked “Please explain how the imprisonment of the above mentioned individuals for their refusal to engage in military service on religious grounds is compatible with international human rights standards, including on freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Armenia's reply to the communication reached the OHCHR on 1 st February 2012, one day too late to be included in the documentation for the 19 th Session of the Human Rights Council. The response itself is unimpressive. Despite the years of criticism of the inadequacy of the 2003 Act, it 21 Op cit, footnote 4

22 Corley, F. “Armenia:European Court finds conscientious objector was wrongly convicted and jailed, but what will government do?”, Forum 18 News Service (www.f18news.org), 7th July 2011. 23 A/HRC/19/44, p.64, Case No ARM/1/2011. repeats the claim that this represented Armenia's full compliance with its accession commitment, and also implies that the commitment was fully honoured with regard to the pardoning of conscientious objectors. Regarding Bayatyan, it rehearses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights “that Article 9 does not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief” and reiterates the spurious argument put forward before the Grand Chamber that “at the time when the applicant was convicted for refusing to serve in the armed forces because of his religious beliefs, there was an explicit case-law according to which the Convention and its Protocols did not guarantee, as such, any right to conscientious objection. The National Authorities cannot be blamed for following the existing case-law and not implementing an approach reflecting developments which only came about at a later date.” This assumes that the only environment in which the “National Authorities” were operating was that of ancient jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It ignores all the non-judicial developments at both the international and European level, the latter already incorporated in the “political” commitments Armenia had entered into when joining the Council of Europe. It ignores also the fact that the Court itself, in Thlimmenos v Greece, had already acknowledged a need to reconcile the apparent conflict between different articles of the Convention which lay behind the early jurisprudence. Regarding the currently-imprisoned conscientious objectors it observes that they had refused both military and alternative service, and comments simply, “Article 9 of the [European] Convention does not give conscientious objectors the right to be exempted from both military or substitute civilian service. Nor does it prevent a State from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service.” By referring only to the narrow jurisprudence under the European Convention, the reply does not address the more detailed international standards as for instance embodied in UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1998/77, which recommends that States “provide for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection (...) and not of a punitive nature”(OP4) and “emphasizes that States should take the necessary measures to refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors to imprisonment...”

Similarly, the legalistic response to the questions regarding freedom of assembly and association does not serve to dispel that the Jehovah's Witnesses community there is subjected to widespread discrimination, which may be largely a reaction to their known opposition to military service.

More encouraging is that in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief in the subsequent meeting of the Human Rights Council, referring to the communication, the Armenian representative referred to the draft amendments to the Law, which “had been discussed with representatives of religious groups interested in the alternative service” and expressed confidence that with the reforms the law would become “more comprehensive”. Even more encouragingly, in practice Armenia has refrained from creating any fresh violations since the date of the communication. Several of the imprisonments mentioned in the communication had taken place in the month following the Bayatyan judgement, and one further conscientious objector had been convicted early in August 2011, before the communication was sent but too late to be included in the list. That is however the last case to have been reported. The number of imprisoned conscientious objectors has therefore been gradually declining as individuals complete their sentences. At the end of May 2012, the total was 39, with two more due to be released in June.

On the other hand, the respite could prove to be temporary. There have been no reports of conscientious objectors being released before completing their entire sentences, and five of those currently imprisoned are not due for release until 2014. (See table in Appendix). It is believed that a number of prosecutions are pending, but the trials are repeatedly being adjourned. 24 Appeals have been lodged to halt some of the pending prosecutions, but the only one yet to have been decided

24 Corley, F., 1st February 2012, op cit . was rejected. 25

The indication in the replies to the List of Issues, that “supplements are planned in the (…) Criminal Code, by which, people who have committed an action defined by Article 327 (...) because of their religion and beliefs before 1 May 2012, are released from criminal liability or punishment, if before 1 August 2012 they submit an application about taking on an alternative service.”, 26 whether or not this provision has actually taken effect, does not in any way address the conscientious objections involved, simply providing a belated opportunity to recant. In this it is tantamount to coercion to change religion or belief.

Continuing restrictions of civil rights

. No cases have been reported where, after serving a long prison sentence, a conscientious objector has been convicted of continued refusal to perform military service. However after release conscientious objectors find that their civil rights are restricted in other ways. A number have been refused identity documents (internal passports) because they were not given a document of registration by the military commissariat. The identity documents are necessary for such things as employment or marriage. Others, who possessed identity documents, were refused residency registration, a requirement in Armenia. 27

The one encouraging feature of the draft amendments to the Alternative Service Act which were put before Parliament in 2011 was that they included a provision that those completing alternative service would be issued with the “Military Booklet”. 28 As this is often required in order to obtain work, this is a rare respect in which conscientious objectors would not complain about not being distinguished from military conscripts.

The situation of conscientious objectors in Nagorno-Karabakh

Although Armenia does not itself claim title to Nagorno-Karabakh, it remains the only member state of the United Nations to have recognised the de facto government of this secessionist territory within Azerbaijan. It may therefore be noted that Nagorno-Karabakh in 2003 adopted the Criminal Code of Armenia, and that conscientious objectors to military service there are prosecuted under the same Article, No. 127 as in Armenia. 29

The Nagorno-Karabakh army was believed in 2007 to have a strength of between 18,500 and 20,000 personnel, over half of whom were Armenian nationals, the remainder largely conscripted from within the territory. The Law on Military Obligations of 2001 requires all males to undergo medical examination at the age of 16 to assess their fitness to perform the obligatory two years' military service between the age of 18 and 27. 30 There are no provisions allowing for conscientious objection.

Between 2001 and 2005 at least four Jehovah's Witnesses conscientious objectors were

25 Ibid 26 CCPR/C/ARM/Q/2/Add.1, 24 th April, 2012, pp 34,35. 27 General Counsel of the Jehovah's Witnesses, 2005, op cit. 28 Corley, F., 1st February 2012, op cit 29 Stolwijk, M., The Right to Conscientious Objection in Europe: A Review of the Current Situation , Quaker Council on European Affairs, Brussels, 2005, p.11. 30 Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, Child Soldiers Global Report 2008 (London, 2008), pp56, 57. sentenced under Article 127. 31 The most recent of them, Areg Hovhanesyan, received a maximum sentence which was doubled to four years under the declared state of emergency; in 2008 an appeal for early release was turned down and the court ordered his “re-education”. 32 Hovhanesyan was finally released in February 2009, but there have been two subsequent imprisonments. Armen Mirzoyan, a Baptist who does not object to military service but refuses to bear arms or take the military oath was sentenced to one year's imprisonment on 30 th June 2010 under Article 364.1 of the criminal code “refusal to perform military duties” 33 Following his release, and various threats of fresh prosecution, it seems that he has eventually been allowed to perform unarmed service in a medical unit stationed in occupied Azerbaijani territory outside the border of Nagorno-Karabakh. 34 His older brother Gagik Mirzoyan, had gone through a similar experience, having been beaten and imprisoned under Article 364.1, but ultimately allowed to perform unarmed military service, from which he was released in January 2008. 35 Most recently, on 30 th December 2011, a further Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector, Karen Harutyunyan, was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment under Article 127. 36

Military training in schools

According to the Child Soldiers Global Report 2008,37 training in the handling of automatic weapons is compulsory for both sexes in grades 8 and 9 of secondary school, ie. from approximately the age of 16. No provisions are reported which would allow children themselves to opt out of such training, or their parents to withdraw them, on grounds of conscience. The same source also quotes reports of a programme in schools for disadvantaged children in which such weapons training begins as young as 11 years old. In September 2005 Armenia ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, but it has yet to report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol.

31 Stolwijk, op cit. 32 Corley, F: "NAGORNO-KARABAKH: Jailed religious conscientious objector must undergo "re-education" Forum 18 News Service March 2008 33 Corley, F., “NAGORNO-KARABAKH: One year in prison for refusing military oath” Forum 18 News Service , 1st July 2010. 34 Corley, F. “NAGORNO-KARABAKH: Conscientious objector jailed for 30 months”, Forum 18 News Service , 17 th January 2012. 35 Corley, F. , March 2008 op cit 36 Corley, F., 17 th January 2012, op cit 37 Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, Child Soldiers Global Report 2008 (London, 2008), p51. Human rights within the Armenian armed forces 38

The human rights of those who join the armed forces are no less important than those of conscientious objectors. In this respect, concern is growing about the high rate of non-conflict deaths in the Armenian armed forces.

Official sources indicate that, between 2007 and 2011, 228 serving members of the armed forces died, 32 of them in incidents on the cease-fire line with Azerbaijan. That leaves 198 deaths to be accounted for. A large number are classified as suicides, which should in itself be a clear indication that something iRomans severely wrong – to that is added the suspicion that in many cases the finding of “suicide” may shield persons whose assaults had led directly to the deaths in question.

Public outrage was stirred by an incident in July 2010 when a conscript, whose parents subsequently claimed that he ought to have been deemed unfit for service on the basis of a known psychological condition, killed five of his colleagues before turning his gun on himself. But it was the deaths in suspicious circumstances of three conscripts, Vardan Sevyan, Aghasi Abrahamyan and Hayk Mkrtchyan within a few weeks in the late summer of 2011 which caused organisations representing parents of conscripts who had been killed while performing their military service to unite under the name “The army in reality” in a campaign for military reforms.

The deaths of Sevyan and Abrahamyan, aged 19 and 18 respectively, were initially recorded as suicides, but these findings were disputed by their parents. The parents of Abrahamyan succeeded in obtaining a court investigation , which found that he had been badly beaten, and that the cause of death was head injuries. A number of arrests were subsequently made. The death of Mkrtchyan, also aged 19, on 7th September, was treated from the outset as a probable homicide, and a fellow- conscript was arrested. The Minister of Defence, has pledged that all three deaths will be fully investigated, but is facing calls for a wider enquiry into treatment of conscripts within the armed forces.

38 ARMENIAN ARMY DEATHS CAUSE OUTCRY Defence ministry forced to become more open than previously”, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Caucasus Reporting Service No 612 18 th October 2011.. Appendix

Conscientious Objectors Imprisoned in Armenia since September 2009

Name Sentenced Release date Months Place

Hovhannes Khachatryan 22/11/06 21/11/09 36 Artik Penal Institution Sayad Tovmasyan 10/01/07 09/01/10 36 Artik Penal Institution Yerem Hovhannisyan 10/01/07 09/01/10 36 Artik Penal Institution Armen Zurabyan 27/02/07 26/02/10 36 Erebuni Penal Institution Armen Khachatryan 17/07/07 16/01/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Nshan Gevorgyan 17/07/07 16/07/10 36 Erebuni Penal Institution David Aroyan 03/08/07 02/02/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Alik Davtyan 04/08/07 03/02/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Aghekyan 08/08/07 07/02/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Hayk Madatyan 11/08/07 10/08/10 36 Erebuni Penal Institution Zora Melkonyan 13/08/07 12/02/10 30 Artik Penal Institution Gor Kirakosyan 21/09/07 20/03/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Stepan Hovakimyan 26/09/07 25/03/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Babken Shahinyah 05/12/07 04/06/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Roman Hovhannisyan 17/12/07 16/06/10 30 Artik Penal Institution Garik Gevorgyan 25/12/07 24/06/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Samson Indzigulyan 25/12/07 24/06/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Harutyun Vardazaryan 09/01/08 08/07/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Hrayr Mkrtchyan 14/01/08 13/07/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Hovhannes Arakelyan 18/01/08 17/01/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Araz Arshakyan 05/02/08 04/08/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Armen Mardoyan 05/02/08 04/08/10 30 Artik Penal Institution Hamayak Eminyan 06/02/08 05/05/10 27 Erebuni Penal Institution Davit Petrosyan 07/02/08 06/08/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Martun Hovsepyan 07/02/08 06/08/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Zirayr Karyan 06/03/08 05/09/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Ashot Simonyan 12/03/08 11/03/11 36 Artik Penal Institution Hovik Stepanyan 31/03/08 30/03/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Karo Aleksanyan 04/04/08 03/04/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Vahe Ananyan 08/04/08 07/04/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Karen Voskanyan 11/04/08 10/10/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Vahram Baghramyan 03/06/08 02/12/10 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Alik Balayan 14/07/08 13/07/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Mkhitar Sargsyan 17/07/08 16/07/11 36 Erebuni Penal Institution Shahen Asatryan 17/07/08 16/07/11 36 Artik Penal Institution Tigran Melikyan 31/07/08 30/07/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Gevorg Danughyan 08/08/08 07/08/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Gor Petrosyan 15/08/08 14/08/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Mher Barseghyan 25/08/08 24/02/11 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Vardan Kasemyan 02/09/08 01/09/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Garegin Gogjyan 13/09/08 12/11/10 26 Erebuni Penal Institution Armen Martirosyan 02/10/08 01/10/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Gagik Shakaryan 06/10/08 05/10/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Grisha Ohanjanyan 13/10/08 12/10/10 24 Erebuni Penal Institution David Parsadanyan 22/01/09 ? Erebuni Penal Institution Samvel Shkoyan 22/01/09 ? Artik Penal Institution David Mnatsakanyan 02/02/09 01/08/11 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Name Sentenced Release date Months Place

Vigen Sargsyan 02/02/09 01/08/11 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Arman Kareyan 07/03/09 06/09/10 18 Erebuni Penal Institution Levon Bashberukyan 18/03/09 27/05/11 26 Erebuni Penal Institution Nver Nazaryan 24/03/09 23/03/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Tatul Arsenyan 20/04/09 19/04/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Vladimir Sargsyan 21/04/09 20/10/11 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Gevorg Karapetyan 11/05/09 10/05/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Hovsep Mutafyan 12/05/09 11/05/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Gagik Toplakhaltsyan 18/05/09 17/11/11 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Mher Hayrapetyan 18/05/09 17/05/11 24 Vanadzor Institution Harutyun Gagyan 28/05/09 27/11/11 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Hayk Avagyan 09/07/09 08/07/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Gor Aslanyan 27/07/09 26/01/12 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Ishkhan Grigoryan 10/08/09 09/08/11 24 Kosh Penal Institution Aram Apresyan 26/08/09 25/08/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Kamo Sahakyan 26/08/09 25/08/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Arkadi Mardoyan 28/08/09 27/02/12 30 Artik Penal Institution Vanik Soghomonyan 31/08/09 30/02/12 30 Artik Penal Institution Grigor Safaryan 04/09/09 03/03/12 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Lyudvik Arshakyan 07/09/09 06/03/12 30 Kosh Penal Institution Raphael Manukyan 17/09/09 16/03/12 30 Artik Penal Institution Karapet Aghadjanyan 22/09/09 21/03/12 30 Kosh Penal Institution Hakob Babudjyan 25/09/09 25/09/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Artak Kroyan 30/09/09 29/03/12 30 Kosh Penal Institution Vahram Grigoryan 02/10/09 25/08/11 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Gevork Sargsyan 08/10/09 07/10/11 24 Kosh Penal Institution Andranik Martirosyan 12/10/09 11/10/11 24 Kosh Penal Institution Roman Minasyan 12/10/09 11/10/11 24 Kosh Penal Institution Aghasi Sargsyan 14/10/09 13/10/11 24 Artik Penal Institution Hayk Ghazaryan 03/11/09 02/11/11 24 Kosh Penal Institution Spartak Khanumyan 28/12/09 27/06/12 30 Artik Penal Institution Levon Vardanyan 18/01/10 17/06/12 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Vardan Vardanyan 19/01/10 18/01/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution Hovhannes Kasemyan 02/02/10 01/02/12 24 Artik Penal Institution Taron Pirapyan 02/03/10 01/09/12 30 Kosh Penal Institution Artur Torosyan 09/03/10 08/09/12 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Karapet Sargsyan 18/03/10 17/03/12 24 Artik Penal Institution Samvel Prutyan 23/03/10 22/09/12 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Ashot Khachikyan 29/03/10 28/03/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution David Martirosyan 29/03/10 28/03/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution Arayik Nahapetyan 09/04/10 08/04/12 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Zorayr Arakelyan 14/04/10 13/10/12 30 Artik Penal Institution Narek Seyranyan 24/04/10 23/04/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution Levon Tumanyan 06/05/10 05/11/12 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Rafael Khalatov 19/05/10 18/05/12 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Narek Chinaryan 21/05/10 20/05/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution Narek Pogosyan 24/05/10 23/11/12 30 Kosh Penal Institution Suren Tonoyan 09/06/10 08/06/12 24 Erebuni Penal Institution David Khlghatyan 19/07/10 18/07/12 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Andranik Bagiryan 02/08/10 01/02/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Edouard Ohandjanyan 02/08/10 01/08/12 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Name Sentenced Release date Months Place

Levon Avakyan 03/08/10 02/02/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Alik Davtyan 04/08/10 03/02/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Sevak Aghekyan 05/08/10 04/02/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Manuk Khechoyan 09/08/10 08/02/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Derenik Minasyan 11/08/10 10/08/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution Vahe Avetisyan 13/08/10 12/08/12 24 Kosh Penal Institution Artur Hayrapetyan 18/08/10 17/08/11 12 Erebuni Penal Institution Hakob Engibaryan 24/08/10 23/11/12 27 Erebuni Penal Institution Harutyun Mnatsakanyan 25/08/10 24/08/13 36 Erebuni Penal Institution Gor Mesropyan 27/08/10 26/02/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Anri Khachatryan 29/08/10 28/08/12 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Artashes Arshakyan 06/09/10 05/03/13 30 Kosh Penal Institution Vardan Antonyan 11/09/10 10/03/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution Vahagn Alikhanyan 24/09/10 23/03/13 30 Artik Penal Institution Nikolay Poghosyan 21/10/10 20/04/13 30 Erebuni Penal Institution David Muradyan 30/12/10 29/06/12 18 Kosh Penal Institution Ashot Voskanyan 02/02/11 01/02/14 36 Erebuni Penal Institution Samvel Sargsyan 02/02/11 01/08/13 30 Kosh Penal Institution Arutyun Kirakosyan 09/03/11 08/09/13 30 Nubarashen Penal Institution Arman Nersisyan 14/03/11 13/03/13 24 Kosh Penal Institution Andranik Geghamyan 15/03/11 14/03/13 24 Kosh Penal Institution Hayk Sargsyan 08/04/11 07/10/13 30 Nubarashen Penal Institution Hovik Gasparyan 11/04/11 10/10/13 30 Nubarashen Penal Institution Hovhannes Sardaryan 01/07/11 30/06/13 24 Erebuni Penal Institution Artur Adyan 07/07/11 06/01/14 30 Nubarashen Penal Institution Vahagn Marganyan 07/07/11 06/01/14 30 Nubarashen Penal Institution Garegin Avetisyan 19/07/11 18/01/14 30 Nubarashen Penal Institution Harutyun Kharkhatchyan 27/07/11 26/01/14 30 Vanadzor Institution Edouard Sargsyan 06/08/11 05/08/13 24 Erebuni Penal Institution

Sources: Lists produced at various dates on the website www.jw-media.org and War Resisters International (www.wri-irg.org) Prisoners for Peace database