20 ARMENIA* IHF FOCUS: good governance (corruption); national human rights protection; elec- tions and referenda; freedom of the media; peaceful assembly; judicial system and independence of the judiciary; torture and ill-treatment; arbitrary arrest and deten- tion; conscientious objection; property rights; national and ethnic minorities. Problems related to the local elections occurred in the course of 2004 – and was and the referendum on constitutional heavily criticized by many Armenian offi- amendments were major concerns in cials responsible for the abuses. Corrup- Armenia in 2005: restrictions on opposi- tion remained widespread and the meas- tion campaigning hindered inter alia the ures taken in 2005 to fight it were half- free flow of information and the right to hearted and inefficient. peaceful assembly. Indications in 2004 of a decrease in Despite certain improvements to legis- the use of torture and ill-treatment in pen- lation regulating the holding of demonstra- itentiaries proved to be overly optimistic as tions and other public assemblies, a num- new cases were discovered in the Nuba- ber of provisions remained restrictive and rashen penitentiary in 2005. Police mis- vaguely worded, thereby paving the way conduct was also commonplace during for inadequate implementation. While the operations to disperse opposition rallies: opposition was able to hold some demon- police used excessive force and brutally strations, in most cases these and other beat demonstrators, arrested them in a political events held by the opposition manner that amounted to kidnapping and were thwarted by authorities and police held them at police stations for question- using excessive force and violence. ing without legitimate grounds. According to the “Freedom of the The inadequate law on conscientious Press in the World Index,” freedom of ex- objection and conditions of alternative pression and the media deteriorated in service led to criminal proceedings against 2005, and the efforts of the television sta- 23 men who had interrupted their alterna- tion A1+, that was taken off air in 2002, to tive service in 2004. By the end of 2005, be granted a frequency to resume broad- 14 men had been given prison sentences casting, proved futile – the case was de- between 24 and 42 months for desertion clared partially admissible by the European and/or for leaving their place of duty with- Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). out permission. Other cases were ongoing Basic deficiencies in the judicial sys- at year’s end. tem and the operation of the judiciary re- There were also numerous cases of ported in an independent study published authorities violating the right to housing in December 2004 continued in 2005. and property rights in the course of imple- These included dependence of judges on mentation of new city planning for the public authorities, problems with judicial center of Yerevan. Residents were forced review, as well as poor judicial oversight to sell their apartments at prices a fraction and administrative practices. Despite all of market prices, or were evicted. these problems, the ombudsman was not allowed to review complaints about inade- Good Governance quate operation of judicial bodies. Her re- According to the 2005 “Transparency port published in April clearly pointed to International Corruption Perception Index,” some serious human rights violations that Armenia was ranked 88 out of 159 coun- * Based on Armenian Helsinki Committee, Human Rights in Armenia, Annual Report 2005, December 2005. The original report was prepared by Avetik Ishkahanian, Lilit Simonian, Vahan Ishkhanian, and Anush Dashtents. The section on corruption was prepared by the Center for Regional Development/Transparency International Armenia, and the section of national minorities was first published in “Monitoring of Democratic Reforms in Armenia,” Part 8, p. 69, by the Yerevan Press Club, 2005. Republished by courtesy of the Yerevan Press Club, edited by the IHF. ARMENIA 21 tries - with the 159th country representing Corruption Strategy Program and its Action the most corrupt one - with a lightly im- Plan and the formation of new institutions proved score since 2004. It appeared, and structures to fight corruption. These however, that no progress had been made new structures included the anti-corruption during the last three years. council under the prime minister, and an Compared to findings in 2002, the re- anti-corruption monitoring commission, sults of the 2005 Business Environment and a special department within the office and Enterprise Performance Survey, con- of the prosecutor general. In addition, it ducted by the World Bank and the appeared that membership in the Group European Bank for Reconstruction and of States against Corruption (GRECO), the Development (EBRD), demonstrated that ratification of the Council of Europe Crimi- a larger number of companies than before nal and Civil Law Conventions on Corrup- indicated corruption as a problem in Arme- tion and the signing of the UN Convention nian business life. While the frequency of against Corruption, did not result in any unofficial payments reportedly decreased, notable improvements. the amount of money paid in bribes as a The main reasons for the failure of the share of the annual sales increased. government’s anti-corruption initiatives in- The main reasons for unofficial pay- cluded: a lack of any real political will to fight ments were reportedly to ensure lower corruption; interrelated political and eco- payments in taxes, customs and other fees nomic interests among the small, high-ran- involved in imports, to receive favorable king elite; a lack of protection of the basic rulings in courts, and to obtain permits and human rights of average citizens; a lack of licenses. Meanwhile, Armenia is in the lead accountability and the virtual impunity en- in comparison with other CIS, European joyed by senior state officials and circles and Central Asian countries with regard to close to them; poor law enforcement and the level of bribes aimed at influencing the the absence of effective control and disci- content of new legislation and other regu- plinary mechanisms; deficiencies in legisla- lations, and bribery for customs/imports tion and lack of conformity with other legal and in courts. acts; public mistrust toward the state and a A nationwide telephone survey of high tolerance of corruption within the who- 1,500 households implemented by the le of society; and the absence of a strong Center for Regional Development/TI Arme- and consistent position of the international nia showed that 62.9% of the respondents community with regard to corruption. believed that the corruption level had in- creased in Armenia in the last thee years.1 National Human Rights Protection Nearly one percent of respondents viewed Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) the government’s anti-corruption efforts as The Armenian ombudsman’s institu- effective, 50% found them ineffective, and tion was established in 2004. Until the 49.1% could not evaluate the effectiveness adoption of constitutional amendments in of the fight against corruption. 2005, the ombudsman was appointed by The above-mentioned information the Armenian president. Article 22 of the supplemented by other research data and Law on the Human Rights Defender states media publications indicated that the per- that the deputy ombudsman shall be ap- ception of the public and experts with re- pointed on the ombudsman’s recommen- gard to progress made in combating cor- dation through the same procedure as in ruption in Armenia is quite negative de- the case of the ombudsman. The Arme- spite the adoption of the National Anti- nian ombudsman recommended the pres- IHF REPORT 2006 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OSCE REGION 22 ARMENIA ident a deputy of her choice, however, the The National Assembly had earlier rejected president rejected the nomination and a legal amendment to this end. In addition, suggested that she nominate another per- by law, the ombudsman may not engage son, resulting de facto in the appointment in the defense of human rights on the ba- of a person of the president’s choice as sis of a third party application. deputy ombudsman. The ombudsman’s office also faced As a result of the adoption of amend- other problems by authorities. ments to the constitution, the ombuds- N On 26 May, the National Security man’s tenure of office expired on 8 January Service (NSS) raided the ombudsman’s 2006. A new appointment had to be made office without a warrant in the wake of the within one month after the expiration of detention on fraud charges of Serob that term. On 4 January 2006, under a Antonian, one of its employees. NSS offi- presidential decree, a commission of three cers seized a computer containing confi- persons was appointed to govern the om- dential data of applicants. This act was in budsman office until a new ombudsman violation of articles 19(1) and 27(1) of the was elected. The outgoing ombudsman Ombudsman Law, which grant immunity challenged the constitutionality of the de- to the ombudsman from criminal prosecu- cree but her appeal was rejected by the tion without permission from the presi- Constitutional Court. At the time of writing, dent, including confidentiality of his/her Armenia did not have an ombudsman. documentation and communications de- The criteria and procedures used for vices. The computer was later returned. hiring the ombudsman’s staff lacked clari- ty, and it appeared that vacancies in the N On 30 May, two NSS officers went to ombudsman’s