April-June 2017

Peace Dialogue is presenting the current issue of its quarterly report on the conditions of Human Rights in the RA Military Forces. Peace Dialogue is an Armenian non-governmental organization active in peace building, democracy and human rights. One of the main spheres of its activities is monitoring human rights violations in the RA Armed Forces, in pursuit of justice and initiation of public debate on current issues in the Armenian Armed Forces, particularly aimed, but not limited to, at seeking relevant solutions and promoting those solutions by presenting them to the Armenian authorities and relevant international actors.

This report includes current analysis of the organization, court cases and their status and covers the following topics:

1. Representatives of religious organizations and the situation of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the armed forces.
2. The ambiguity of the terms “suitable for military service” and “suitable with restrictions” in the RA law.
3. The death cases recorded in the Armenian Armed Forces during the first half of 2017.
4. Information related to the investigation of private soldiers Grigor Avetisyan’s and Souren Aramyan’s death cases.
5. Update on the court case of the death of Private Manuchar Manucharyan.
6. Update on the court case of the death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan.
7. The Administrative Court rejected the requirement to force the Ministry of Defense to provide information to Peace Dialogue.

1. Representatives of religious organizations and the situation of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the armed forces

“Spiritual presence has never been part of our army, though the Armenian clergy has always been next to the Armenian warrior especially during wartimes holding the victorious sacred cross of Jesus with one hand and the spear with the other.” – is mentioned in the article “The Spiritual Service in the Armenian Armed Forces” posted on the website of the RA Ministry of Defense.

According to the article the Spiritual service of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the ARM Armed Forces has been performed since 1997. Spiritual service of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the ARM Armed Forces is established by the encyclical of the Catholicos of All Armenians. With the decree of the ARM Defense Minister it is a part of the ministry structure. Main objectives of the spiritual service are to introduce Bible, New Testament and main principles of Christianity to the staff of the ARM Armed Forces as well as educate them with Christian moral principles and national patriotic spirit.

In order to understand the role of the religious groups in the army, the peculiarities of their activities as well as all the mechanisms that ensure the provision of the right of conscious and religion, Peace Dialogue NGO sent the following enquiry to the Ministry of Defense:

“According to the article The Spiritual Service in the Arm Armed Forces, the clergymen give  lectures, make relevant conversations with soldiers, encourage them during border post rotations with their prayers, visit border outposts, and organize featuring of educational movies, pilgrimages, liturgies and other religious ceremonies.

Considering that Article 1, Paragraph 3, Point 3 of the RA Law on Military Service specifies that the serviceman has no right to be a member of any political party, religious or trade union, and the sixth paragraph of the same section prohibits the use of official positions for the benefit of political parties, religious and public associations and campaign for the benefit of their activities, we kindly ask you to clarify:

1. Based on which legal acts  the spiritual activity of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia is justified?
2. Do other religious organizations and religious leaders have the opportunity to carry out similar activities in Armenian military units?
3. Since representatives of other national and religious groups that are citizens of the Republic of Armenia undergo compulsory military service in the RA Armed Forces, what mechanism is envisaged for the realization of the right of citizens to freedom of thought, conscience and religion?

The response letter of the Ministry of Defense particularly states that the activity of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the RA Armed Forces is based on Article 10 of the RA Law on Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian Apostolic Church: “The Armenian Apostolic Church has the right to have a permanent spiritual representative in hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, military units, places of detention, including investigative isolators.”

Other regulations on conducting spiritual service in military units are not provided by the RA legislation.

This response clearly shows that a representative of the Armenian Apostolic Church has the right to be present at military units, but it is not clear what legal act defines the scope of their activity and services, and whether the latter applies only to his followers or to the whole military unit and to each soldier regardless of his/her religious affiliation.

It should be noted that according to the Helsinki Committee report 2014 there were cases when military clerics gave “explanatory and moral guidelines” to members of minority religious organizations. Particularly, it is mentioned that a member of the minority religious group serving in compulsory military service was forced to pray by the priest’s instruction, and the commander was pressuring him to leave the church he had professed. According to the report, the conscript had participated in the religious rituals of the Armenian Apostolic Church for 8 months against his will.

Additionally, in its enquiry, the PD mentioned that the International Religious Freedom Report published on August 10, 2016 by the U.S. Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, particularly the section on the Republic of Armenia states: “According to non-governmental organizations and religious groups, the recruits who serve in the armed forces compile a questionnaire in a military commissariat where they must state their religious affiliation. Reportedly the formulation of this question was whether a person was a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church or a “sect.”

In the above-mentioned enquiry Peace Dialogue requested a clarification as what is the purpose of such a questionnaire and be provided with the copy of it.

In that  regard, the response letter of the Ministry of Defense reads  that the purpose of clarifying the religious affiliation of the conscripts in the military commissariat and other circumstances is to ensure the realization of their rights, including the right to freedom of conscience and religion, in their further service.

However, it remains unclear how the mechanisms of the representatives of other religious organizations are exercising their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, whether the opportunities are equal for everyone, especially if we take into consideration the ambiguous  scope of the Armenian Apostolic Church representatives’ activities.

2. The ambiguity of the terms “suitable for military service” and “suitable with restrictions” in the RA law

According to RA Defense Minister’s Order № 410 dated April 8, 2013 on Approving the Procedure for Medical Expert Examination of Persons Liable for Military Service and Servicemen and Revoking the RA Defense Minister’s Order № 175 dated February 26, 2010 the following two conclusions are possible for suitability to military service:

• suitable for military service, 
• suitable for military service with restrictions.

The relatives of those citizens who underwent/are undergoing compulsory military service in the Armenian Armed forces applied to the organization during the period of 2015-2017, point out that, despite the fact that their children were recognized suitable for military service with restrictions as a result of a health check, they were/are not granted any privileges and it is unclear how mentioned restrictions are expressed upon their children’s service.

In this regard, Peace Dialogue NGO sent an enquiry to the Ministry of Defense receive clarification about a number of questions related to the restrictions or limitations for the servicemen during their military service.

The enquiry reads:  

We kindly ask for clarification for the following questions:

• What restrictions are envisaged for servicemen with the conclusion “suitable for military service with restrictions”?
• What legal act establishes the status of a “suitable with restrictions” and the service with that status?
• Where can the legal act regulating the status “suitable with restrictions” be found?
• How are the servicemen with the status “suitable for military service with restrictions” informed about the restrictions envisaged for them?

The response letter from the Ministry of Defense read: “… servicemen’s combat duty and guardianship, physical training and restrictions on military service, as well as the appointment of military officers have been approved by the secret order of the Chief of Staff of the RA Armed Forces … military servicemen are informed on the limitations of the military service via direct command staff.”

From this response, it can be concluded that a soldier with the status “suitable for military service with restrictions” may not be able to find out prior to military service what kind of restrictions the service provides for him, which types of service are dangerous for his health. 

Moreover, being informed about it by the command in the military unit he has no opportunity to dispute the conclusion, as the legal regulation of the subject matter is kept secret from the beginning by the competent authorities.

3. The death cases recorded in the Armenian Armed Forces during the first half of 2017

In the period January-June 2017, 36 death cases were recorded in the RA and Nangorno-Karabakh armed forces, 16 of which were ceasefire regime violations.

In the mentioned period 5 suicide cases were recorded, 4 murder cases and 4 fatal accidents; 2 death cases were the result of negligence, while 2 others were result of health issues; 1 soldier died of gunshot wound as a result of violation of safety rules.

The causes of death for 2 more death cases are yet unknown: 1 fatal gunshot wound and 1 biological death recorded as a result of deterioration of health.

4. Information related to the investigation of private soldiers Grigor Avetisyan’s and Souren Aramyan’s death cases.

According to the official hypothesis on April 6, 2016, the bodies of two private soldiers Grigor Avetisyan and Suren Aramyan were found with gunshot wounds at the artillery firing range of the N military unit. A criminal Case was initiated by the 5th garrison division of the RA Investigative Committee under Article 104, Part 2, point 1 and 6 of the RA Criminal Code.

During the last three months a part from the criminal case of the double murder of Grigor Avetisyan and Souren Aramyan was separated and sent to the court. According to Peace Dialogue NGO expert Ruben Martirosyan who represents the interests of victims’ successors, this decision is illegal. “It contradicts the Article 28 (2) of RA Criminal Procedure Code (Separation of a criminal case against persons involved in one or several crimes is done by decision of the investigator, the prosecutor or the court, when this is necessary based on the facts of the case and cannot affect the completeness and objectivity of the case) according to which it is necessary to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the case .“- he argues.

Essentially, this decision of the preliminary investigation body is based on the confession testimony of serviceman Doumikyan, who afterwards renounced and has claimed so far that the testimonies were extracted from him. The preliminary investigative body arbitrarily interprets the “confession testimonies” of Davit Doumikyan, who “turned himself into” the police after the double murder, accepting his confession regarding the murder of one of the soldiers as true, while regarding the testimony about the murder of the other soldier as inaccurate.

The preliminary investigative body considered “proven” the fact that Doumikyan killed Gregory Avetisyan but did not consider proven that he also killed Souren Aramyan.  The same self-confessed  testimony indicates that he also killed Souren Aramyan, whereas the preliminary investigation body did not consider proven that Doumikyan killed Souren Aramyan. Therefore, the preliminary investigation body separated the part about Grigor Avetisyan’s death and sent it to court.

The senior investigator Tunyan of the Erebuni and Nubarashen administrative districts’ investigation department has instructed the head of Erebuni Police Department to investigate the following fact: Nubarashen Penitentiary institution detainee Khachatur Zohrabyan has reported that four other detainees in the same cell as Davit Doumikyan (he was accused of murder of two fellow servicemen during his army service) wanted to kill Doumikyan  “expecting” to receive $ 50,000 from the client who is one of the deceased soldiers’ father Hermon Avetisyan. (See Peace Dialogue’s statement in Armenian)

PD believes that this is an attempt to put pressure on Doumikyan and threaten the unprotected soldier to force him to confess a crime he did not commit.

According to Article 59, part 11 of The RA Procedure Code the aggrieved party has the right to petition and receive the copy of the final court decision for the case and challenge it, whereas the aggrieved party was unable to do it for a long time because despite numerous petitions and demands, the preliminary investigation body was rejecting to provide the copy of the decision depriving the aggrieved party to exercise his right to challenge the decision.

Only after numerous appeals to different court instances over two years the aggrieved party was provided with the copy. After getting acquainted with that decision, the aggrieved party considers that it was subject to cancellation and has filed a petition to the prosecutor’s office, which will be presented subsequently.

On January 30, 2017, the aggrieved party reported on the crime committed by Investigator Gevorgyan, who is the investigator of the 5th Garrison investigative division of the Investigative Committee, and the head of the division.

According to the RA Criminal Procedure Code, the aggrieved party’s appeal was to be examined immediately, while it was supposed to be resolved within 10 days from the moment the report was received. However, no investigation was carried out over the mentioned report, while the Head of the Service, instead of carrying out an investigation, sent the report to the Chief Prosecutor.

The RA Prosecutor’s office, in its turn, instead of proceeding with the report of the aggrieved party as prescribed by law, sent the report to the same investigative group that is investigating the double murder case of the soldiers. It is noteworthy that Investigator Gevorgyan of the 5th garrison investigative division is also in this group and this is the same person the aggrieved party accuses of committing a crime. Therefore, he has no right to carry out the investigation simply because the investigator cannot investigate a case which examines the crime he committed and initiate a criminal case against himself.

Despite this, on May 31, 2017 the successor of the aggrieved party H. Avetisyan received a notice from the Investigative group calling him to the above-mentioned division to testify as a witness. It should be noted once again that the deadline for proceeding with the report of the aggrieved party expired on February 15, 2017.

5. Update on the court case of the death of Private Manuchar Manucharyan

In July 2016, the court ruled a decision over Manuchar Manucharyan’s case appointing additional posthumous forensic examination.

As a basis for such a decision the Judge considered the fact that there were substantial contradictions between the testimonies given by the witnesses during the preliminary investigation and the trial which do not allow the court to make definite conclusion on the following issues:

a) Was M. Manucharyan in the state of great agitation at the time of the incident? Could he commit a suicide?

b) Is there a cause-and-effect relation between M. Manucharyan’s alleged suicide and A. Stepanyan’s and B. Gaboyan’s actions?  In other words, did Stepanyan and Gaboyan, with their illegal actions drive Manucharyan to commit suicide?

Just nine months after the court’s decision to appoint an additional posthumous examination, the aggrieved party received an expert opinion where, in response to the above-mentioned questions, the expert psychologists wrote, in particular: “Because the different findings  in the criminal case are highly contradictory , given the fact that evaluation of the validity of that information is beyond the scope of the psychologist’s expertise, it is not possible to make definite conclusions over the cause-effect relation between the actions of M. Manucharyan as well as B. Gaboyan and A. Stepanyan and M. Manucharyan’s mental state during the period preceding his death.”

The third question addressed to the experts was the following:

“Had there been any signs of pathological affect and other emotional state observed in Manucharyan until July 29, 2013. If yes, what kind of effect could they have on this conscious and actions in the mentioned period?”

The answer to that  question is also in line with the previous  opinion of the experts.

“Because the different findings  in the criminal case are highly contradictory , given the fact that evaluation of the validity of that information is beyond the scope of the psychologist’s expertise, it is not possible to make definite conclusions over the cause-effect relation between the actions of M. Manucharyan as well as B. Gaboyan and A. Stepanyan and M. Manucharyan’s mental state during the period preceding his death. 

In case the facts provided by L. Mkrtchyan during the preliminary investigation and trial, the facts provided by A. Sahakyan and A. Abrahamyan during the preliminary investigation and the information available in the case files are evaluated as credible information by the body conducting the proceedings, it will be possible to conclude that M. Manucharyan was in the state of extremely emotional state prior to his death…”

Essentially, experts refuse to give conclusions, reasoning that the information contained in the case is very contradictory. Following that  logic it should have been enough for them to simply say that verifying the validity of the information is beyond the competence of a psychologist-expert, whereas, contrary to what they wrote, they still went beyond that boundary and entered the legal field advising the court on how their conclusion must be assessed without having the right to do so.

In connection with M. Manucharyan’s case it should be noted that after a 9-moth break, during the trial held on May 30, 2017 the Court heard the opinions of the parties on the additional expert conclusion.

In the end of the trial, the aggrieved party presented two motions for sending M. Manucharyan’s trousers for an additional forensic examination, which would allow to determine the origin of a 5mm diameter round hole on the pants with traces of burn on the edges (whether it was a mechanical damage or a gunshot).

The experts gave no answer to this question. It should be noted as a reminder that the expert announced at Court that M. Manucharyan’s trousers were not examined, whereas in the 4th paragraph of the section “Questions for clarifications’ investigator wrote the following: 

“Are there traces of a gunshot on M. Manucharyans clothes? If yes, what caliber weapon were  fired and how many shots were required for them?” 

In response to this question the expert wrote that there were no gunshot or mechanical damages found on the trousers. In its following hearing dated 12.06.2017 the Court rejected both motions made by the aggrieved party.

6. Update on the court case of the death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan

Peace Dialogue NGO continues to represent the interests of the victim’s successor at court in the murder case of Harutyunyan Hambaryan. According to the official hypothesis private Haroutyun Hambaryan shot himself in the forehead on May 8, 2015 from a rifle gun attached to him and died immediately. The same day the 3rd garrison division of the RA Investigative Committee initiated a criminal case and an investigative group was formed.

As we have noted in our previous report in the first quarter of the 2017 the Syunik Court of First Instance issued two decisions connected with the case of Hambaryan.

With one of these decisions the court satisfied the complaint filed by the aggrieved party against the court decision made in May 2016 over terminating the case of suicide.

The Court examined the complaint and decided that the complaint is justified and recorded violations of rights and freedoms of the aggrieved party and then gave a number of instructions to Prosecutor Aghabekyan over the investigation of the case. The latter allegedly implemented and is implementing the court decision, however, according to Peace Dialogue NGO expert R. Martirosyan, his actions are unlawful since before the examination of Hambaryan’s murder or suicide case, he was obliged to eliminate the decision of terminating the suicide case mentioned above: no dismissal proceedings are to be carried out until it the case has been dropped. The aggrieved party filed a complaint to the prosecutor’s office on this issue, but there has been no answer yet.

Only after the complaint filed by the aggrieved party, based on the complaint the court decided to remove the case from suspension and send it to the Investigation Department.

7. The Administrative Court rejected the requirement to force the Ministry of Defense to provide information to Peace Dialogue

The RA Administrative Court, presided over by Judge Karen Zarikyan during the court hearing on April 18, 2017 rejected the lawsuit filed by Peace Dialogue NGO against the RA Ministry of Defense requesting that the ministry provides official information on the death of soldiers for the period of 1994-2014, including the full names of the deceased soldiers, the location of the incidents, the dates, the unit numbers, the respective unit commander’s full names and ranks, the cause of death and a brief description of the incident.

After applying to the Ministry of Defense to receive the above-mentioned information, the organization filed a lawsuit requesting to oblige the Minister of Defense to provide the requested information and demanded administrative charges brought against then Defense Minister S. Ohanyan.

A court decision was made to temporarily suspend the hearing of these lawsuits since the final decision was connected with a court decision that was to be made over another lawsuit filed by Peace Dialogue which challenged the legitimacy of the classification of secret information as described in Section 17, Point 42 and 43 of the list provided by Executive Order N9 of the then Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan and to partially annul the executive order.

The organization has sent an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Download Quarterly Report on the Human Rights Situation in the Armenian Armed Forces / Vol.4 / (Period: April -June, 2017)(Version: pdf, 564 kB)

Peace Dialogue is presenting the current issue of its quarterly report on the conditions of Human Rights in the RA Military Forces. Peace Dialogue is an Armenian non-governmental organization active in peace building, democracy and human rights. One of the main spheres of its activities is monitoring of human rights violations in the RA Armed Forces, in pursuit of justice and initiation of public debate on current issues in the Armenian Armed Forces, particularly aimed, but not limited to, at seeking relevant solutions and promoting those solutions by presenting them to the Armenian authorities and relevant international actors. The report is a concise version of the comprehensive information that we publish on our site www.safesoldiers.am. The website is updated regularly.

This report includes current analysis of the organization, court cases and their current status and covers the following topics:

1. The issues of Human Rights in the Armed Forces presented in the programs of political parties and coalitions running for the National Assembly.
2. Human Rights in the garrison detention cells of the RA Ministry of Defense.
3. Fatal incidents in the Armenian Armed Forces January –March 2017.
4. Information related to the investigation of private soldiers Grigor Avetisyan’s and Souren Aramyan’s death cases.
5. Update on the court case of the death of Private Manuchar Manucharyan
6. Update on the court case of the death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan
7. Peace Dialogue’s lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense was removed from suspension.

1. The issues of Human Rights in the Armed Forces presented in the programs of political parties and coalitions running for the National Assembly

The preparation of  the Peace Dialogue’s current report on the Human Rights in the Armed Forces coincided with the campaigns of political parties running for the National Assembly. Given the fact that all the political parties one way or another touched upon the issues of the armed forces, we decided, within the framework of this report, to refer to the provisions of electoral programs that discuss the situation of human rights in the armed forces.

Overall 9 political forces (5 parties and 4 party alliances) were running for the National Assambly 2017: The Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), The Armenian  Revolutionary Federation (ARF), The Armenian Revival Party, Free Democrats party, the Communist Party of Armenia, as well as “Yelk” (Exit), “Ohanyan-Raffi-Ohanyan”, “Tsarukyan”, and Armenian National Congress (ANC)-People’s party of Armenia alliances.

Five of the political forces the Free Democrats and Armenian Revival parties, Yelk alliance, Ohanyan-Raffi-Oskanyan alliance and Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) discussed the issues related to the gradual transition to a professional army in their political programs. However, unlike the Free Democrats and Armenian Revival parties, which consider professional army as an alternative to compulsory military service, the Ohanyan-Raffi-Oskanyan alliance and Dashnaktsutyun consider that professional soldiers should be serving together with the soldiers who are undergoing a compulsory military service. Meanwhile, Yelk announced that the contract soldiers will serve a combat duty on the front-line which does not imply the removal of compulsory military service model.

The political program of Yelk alliance stresses mostly the solutions of social issues while referring to the armed forces. The program includes housing for officers, providing civic education to the soldiers in the mandatory military service, recommendations related to improving the quality of food, clothes, and the healthcare in the army. All the political parties one way or another referred to the issues of improving social conditions of the soldiers.

Unlike the other political parties, Free Democrats, Armenian Communist Party and Ohanyan-Raffi-Oskanyan alliance highlighted the need for civilian control over the armed forces. In this context, the ORO alliance emphasizes the importance of strengthening army-society relations and “opening the doors of the army to the civil society and the human rights activists.” It should be noted that one of the founders of the alliance is the former Minister of Defense Seyran Ohanyan, who founded the alliance with two former Foreign Affairs Ministers of Armenia Raffi Hovhannisyan and Vardan Oskanyan. It is noteworthy that during his tenure as the Minister of Defense Seyran Oyanyan signed an executive order that prevented access by the relatives of deceased soldiers and civil society actors to information concerning the non-combat fatal incidents in the military forces.

Both the Republican Party and the ORO alliance stressed the importance of improving the discipline in the armed forces and eliminating hazing among soldiers. It should be noted, that the Free Democrats highlight in a separate provision the importance of revealing the circumstances of death cases of soldiers and officers who died in non-combat situations as well as “a versatile, comprehensive and transparent investigation of omissions and errors of the April war in 2016”.

The Free Democrats have also offered to review the procurement process in the armed forces and establish a better control over it in order to overcome the conversions, abuses and corrupt transactions.

The political program of the Republican Party made a reference to eliminating the corruption risks in the armed forces: when speaking about the security issues in this context the program emphasizes the protection and safeguarding of human life, however in the section referring to the military, there is nothing mentioned about the right to life and the need to improve the human rights situation in general.

The Republican Party, the ORO alliance, Free Democrats and the Armenian Communist Party stressed the importance of procurement and production of armaments, as well as the issues related to upgrading the material and the technical base of the military.

Three of the political forces: the Free Democrats, the Republican Party and the Armenian Communist Party have discussed the issues of Armenia’s participation in military alliances. Moreover, the Free Democrats consider necessary “to review a number of multilateral treaties adopted within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) which have been ratified without mutual respect towards the vital and sensitive security issues of Armenia and requisites for neutralizing the security risks.” (Free Democrats’ program). This political party offers to bring the Armenian Armed forces in compliance with the NATO standards considerably increasing its capacity and efficiency, including through participation in international peacekeeping missions.

At the same time, the Armenian Communist party is proposing to deepen military cooperation with Russia in the framework of the CSTO, while the Republican Party wants Armenia to consistently contribute to the further strengthening of the CSTO.

In should be noted that the Tsarukyan alliance has not addressed the issues in the armed forces in their program at all, while the coalition of Armenian National Congress and People’s Party of Armenia (ANC-PPA) sees the solution to the problems in the Armenian army through the peaceful resolution of NK conflict and reconciliation with Azerbaijan. In the program of this political force it is particularly mentioned that the reconciliation will end the death of hundreds of soldiers on the front-line and civilians. Moreover it will stop the arms race and will significantly reduce the burden of military spending that is 4-5% of the GDP at the present.

Based on the foregoing, it can be stated that most of the political parties that were involved in the political race did not touch upon the issues in the armed forces in terms of human rights protection or did not allocate enough space in their program for the legal aspects of the issue. Taking into consideration the fact that some of the political forces and their leaders have had the political power and opportunities to carry out actions aimed at improving the human rights in the armed forces, it should be noted that very few of them have taken serious practical steps in this direction during their tenure. Therefore, the impression is that many of the political forces referred to the issues in the army in a populist manner in their programs simply to attract more voters.

P.S. By the time the report was oubkushed, four of the mentioned political forces had passed the minimum threshold for entering the National Assembly: the Republican Party, Tsarukyan alliance, Yelk alliance and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun).

2. Human Rights in the garrison detention cells of the RA Ministry of Defense

In the previous quarterly report of Peace Dialogue NGO on the Human Rights Violations in the RA Military Forces a reference was made to the issues in the garrison detention cells of the RA Ministry of Defense. Following the report we received a clarification from the Ministry of Defense reading that “according to the RA Criminal Code those soldiers are kept in the RA MoD Militray Police garrison cells who were arrested under a criminal case (up to 72 hours), the soldier against whom arrest was selected as a preventive measure and convicted soldiers (15 days to 3 months)”.

In its 2010 Report after the visit to Armenia, in the paragraph Military Establishments the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) recommended to the Armenian authorities to ensure that the detained persons are transferred to the prison as soon as possible and while the arrested servicemen are transferred to the detention facility their interrogation by the military police is carried out in prison if possible.

In its 2015 Report after the visit to Armenia in the paragraph Military Establishments the CPT expressed its satisfaction by “…the monitoring mechanisms carried out in the detention facilities for the detained soldiers by the independent bodies.”

In its 2010 report the CPT noted that the civil society representatives were granted access to these facilities in the framework of a specific monitoring program, however, the Military Police initially sent a prior notice about their visits. The CPT stressed that, to be fully effective, visits by monitoring groups should be both frequent and unannounced.

Based on the CPT recommendations, Peace Dialogue NGO sent an inquiry to the Ministry of Defense requesting the following information:

1. What concept is there for the civil society representatives for implementing monitoring in the military institutions?
2. What actions have been carried out by the RA MoD in order to develop a system of visits to the military facilities mentioned by the CPT?
3. To what extent were the CPT recommendations taken into consideration while drafting the action plan of the RA Ministry of Defense for the Human Rights protection for the period 2017-2019?

On February 3, 2017 Peace Dialogue NGO received a response letter from the RA MoD Information and Public Relations Department which specifically mentioned:

“… taking into consideration the CPT recommendations, as well as guided by the RA Legislation, the question requiring public supervision in the facilities for arrested and detained people by the monitoring group was included in the draft program of the RA Human Rights Strategy Action Plan 2017-2019.”

However, it is not clear from that response whether there is a concept designed for the civil society representatives for implementing monitoring in the military institutions and on what bases the previous visits by the monitoring groups were organized in the RA MoD facilities for arrested and detained people as noted by the CPT Report 2010.

3. The death cases recorded in the Armenian Armed Forces for the period January-March 2017

In the relatively young Armenian army, the human rights situation, particularly the right to life, remains one of the major issues of concern for the human rights defenders. In their reports different organizations mentioned about the high level of mortality among the soldiers and expressed their concern over the recurring violations, violence, and inaction of the military investigative bodies and several responsible military bodies.

The Armenian human rights activists estimated that since the ceasefire agreement signed in 1994 more than 1500 young peo-ple died in the Armenian army, whereas during the whole duration of the NK war nearly 6000 people were killed from the Armenian side. In a recent research carried out by Ani research center, expert T. Hakobyan noted (The provided link is in Armenian):

“According to my re-search the total number of the losses from the Armenian side throughout the military actions between Armenia and Azerbaijan is 6.500. This number includes the period of 26 years- from 1990 to 2016-including the four-day war in April 2016.”

Our organization has managed to compile detailed information on the causes and circumstances of nearly 980 non-combat death cases which is available on our website www.safesoldiers.am.

In the first quarter of 2017, we compiled information about 16 death cases, just as much as it was reported in the same period last year. The ceasefire regime violations were eight (8), three times more than last year during the same period of time.

Among the reported cases, there were two (2) suicides, two (2) murders, two (2) fatal accidents, one (1) death case caused by negligence and one (1) more death case the cause of which is not known yet.

4. Information related to the investigation of private soldiers Grigor Avetisyan’s and Souren Aramyan’s death cases.

According to the official hypothesis on April 6, 2016, the bodies of two private soldiers Grigor Avetisyan and Suren Aramyan were found with gunshot wounds at the artillery firing range of the N military unit. A criminal Case was initiated by the 5th garrison division of the RA Investigative Committee under Article 104, Part 2, point 1 and 6 of the RA Criminal Code.

According to the families, the investigation that has been carried out in the double murder case of their sons during the last eight months was biased, erroneous and illegal. Grigor Avetisyan’s father Hermon Avetisyan said that there were a few factors that made him suspicious:

“In the evening of the day of the incident I was informed that my son’s body was being transferred from the combat post to Vardenis hospital. I left for Vardenis in order to accompany my son’s body. While I was standing in front of the hospital I noticed a white Niva model car in front of the hospital. When the driver of the car, a person in Military Police uniform who was unknown to me, opened the trunk of the car I noticed a few rifle guns in it. I went closer and saw five rifle guns in the trunk. They were without packaging and without a seal, they were laying there all open. I also noticed that one of the rifles had gunshot traces on it – there were bullet holes in the stock of the rifle, another gunshot hole was noticeable on the right of the metal casing and that part of the weapon was damaged. Taking into consideration that I had already heard that my son was murdered by a number of gunshot wounds, I immediately guessed that it was my son’s weapon. To clarify my doubts, I asked the above mentioned officer if it was my son Girgor’s weapon. He was not surprised by my question and only answered evasively that he did not know. When I received the ballistic and trace report #16551603 from the investigator to which there were photos attached of my son’s AKM model rifle (rifle number ЯЛ-1486), I realized that I saw the same traces on the rifle that was in the trunk of the Niva model car. However, to my surprise, the experts were given not the five rifles which I saw in Vardenis, but only four of them: the fifth rifle had vanished somehow.”

According to the official letter from the investigator, soldier Davit Doumikyan turned himself to the Vardenis Military Police two days following the double murder and confessed that he murdered Avetisyan and Aramyan. However, according to the information that the aggrieved party received, Doumikyan withdrew his confessions later on announcing that “a tall colonel” extorted those testimonies from him.

The investigative body kept Davit Doumikyan in detention for almost a year accusing him of killing the two soldiers.

In March 2017, the investigative body, first verbally and then in a writing, informed the victim’s relatives that a section was separated from the double murder case of Gregory Avetisyan and Suren Aramyan which must be sent to trial.

According to Peace Dialogue NGO expert Rouben Martirosyan that decision is illegal because it contradicts Article 28, part 2 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code, according to which it is necessary to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the case (“Separation of a criminal case against persons involved in one or several crimes is done by decision of the investigator, the prosecutor or the court, when this is necessary based on the facts of the case and can not affect the completeness and objectivity of the case.”).

In fact, the investigative body illegally separates with that decision one complete crime, which occurred on the same day, at the same time, in the same place and by the same group of people this way attempting to conceal the real motives for the murders of two soldiers and the perpetrators.

The preliminary investigative body arbitrarily interprets the “confession testimonies” of Davit Doumikyan, who “turned himself into” the police after the double murder, accepting his confession regarding the murder of one of the soldiers as true, while regarding the murder of the other soldier as inaccurate.

The preliminary investigative body considered “proven” the fact that Doumikyan killed Gregory Avetisyan but did not be consider proven that he also killed Suren Aramyan, therefore it separated the part of Grigor Avetisyan’s murder and is going to send it to the court, although Dumikyan withdrew his confessions.

The investigative body tries to “prove” that allegedly late G. Avetisyan fired a few shots; however it is unable to answer the question of who put a bullet case with 30 bullets in the gun attached to Avetisyan.

The preliminary investigative body considered proven that allegedly late Souren Aramyan was murdered while he was in the trench but it is unable to explain the fact that shots were fired from his gun during the incident.

The authors of N 16551603 expert opinions, A. Hambardzumyan and K. Abrayamyan examining G. Avetisyan’s and S. Aramyan’s clothes found different mechanical damages to the clothes, however there was nothing mentioned about these damages in the “Conclusions” section of their report.

The aggrieved party is convinced that this fraud is the result of an illegal conspiracy between the experts and the preliminary investigative body because the latter persistently rejected the motions of the aggrieved party to send the deceased soldiers’ clothes for forensic examination.

The aggrieved party’s petition to have victim’s successor Hermon Avetisyan’s inquiry “Report about a crime” examined by the Special Investigation Service still remains unanswered.

The mentioned illegalities committed by the investigation body are driven by an “acute need”: on April 6 marks the deadline for keeping Doumikyan under arrest. Under Artciel 138 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code.

It is not prescribed to keep the suspect under custody for more than a year, therefore if Doumikyan is freed either the case will collapse or it should be sent to Court.

Perhaps the above is the reason why the victim’s successors have not been provided with the information and the copies of the decisions prescribed by law in order to prevent them to make motions.

They were verbally informed that only one week will be given to them to become acquainted with the 7-volume case and make motions.

The allocated time is not reasonably enough for getting acquainted with the voluminous case, examine the contradictions and make motions.

5. Update on the court case of the death of Private Manuchar Manucharyan

According to the official version on July 31, 2013 at approximately 1:40 pm. Private Manuchar Meruzhan Manucharyan (Born in 1994, drafted in spring 2012 from Vanadzor commissariat, serving at military unit # 24923 located in Kanaker) while on service on the watchtower, shot himself to the chin three times from 5.54 mm rifle gun and died instantly.

The aggrieved party in Manuchar Manucharyan’s case (according to the official hypothesis “suicide”) has been waiting for the new posthumous forensic medical examination results for nine months already. It is still not clear what examination report will be provided by the same examination center since they are the “authors” of the first examination report.

A reasonable time period is not regulated in Armenia which must be provided to the experts for making an expert conclusion. We think the experts often abuse this gap in the law and Manuchar Manucharyan’s case is a vivid example of this: the parties have been waiting for the expert opinion for nine months already. Reminder: it took only two months for completing the first examination report. 

6. Update on the court case of the death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan

Peace Dialogue NGO continues to represent the interests of the victim’s successor at court in the murder case of Harutyunyan Hambarian. According to the official hypothesis private Haroutyun Hambaryan shot himself to the forehead on May 8, 2015 from a rifle gun attached to him and died immediately. The same day the 3rd garrison devision of the RA Investigative Committee initiated a criminal case and an investigative group was formed.

In the first quarter of the 2017 the Syunik Court of First Instance issued two decisions connected with the case of Hambaryan.

The aggrieved party filed a number of motions, which had arguments that proved that a biased investigation was carried out and as a result, the intentional murder was presented as a suicide. The Court has taken into account 14 of the motions and accepted 12 of them.  PD expert Ruben Martirosyan who is the representative of the aggrieved party thinks that the Court, overall, made an objective decision.

The injured party also filed a complaint, requesting the Court to make a decision on the duties of the prosecution body: the prosecution body are to eliminate violations of the aggrieved parties rights and freedoms caused by the decision of the deputy head of the 3rd garrison division of the RA Investigative committee.

According to this decision no criminal prosecution was initiated over the fact of driving the victim to suicide.

The Court examined the complaint and decided that the complaint is justified and recorded violations of rights and freedoms of the victim and his successor. 

The Court obliged the investigative body to eliminate the violations recorded in the decision.

The aggrieved party is planning to present another motion connected with the decoding of the documents provided by Karabakh Telekom which are included in the criminal case and also were provided to the aggrieved party. Moreover, R. Martirosyan is convinced important parts of the material are missing.

7. Peace Dialogue’s lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense was removed from suspension

On March 7, 2017, the RA Administrative Court has re-launched the hearings of Peace Dialogue NGO’s lawsuit against the RA MoD requesting to oblige the Minister of Defense to provide the requested information.

Reminder: In 2014 Peace Dialogue NGO applied to the RA Minister of Defense requesting that the ministry provides official information on the death of soldiers for the period of 1994-2014, including the full names of the deceased soldiers, the location of the incidents, the dates, the unit numbers, the respective unit commander’s full names and ranks, the cause of death and a brief description of the incident. However, no answer was given to that inquiry. Peace Dialogue filed a lawsuit at the Administrative Court based on the paragraph that guarantees seeking, receiving and imparting information and based on the norms of the Law on Freedom of Information and requesting to oblige the Minister of Defense to provide the information requested in an inquiry dated 07/11/2014.

During the court proceedings dated 12/08/2015 the Ministry of Defense filed a motion to suspend the administrative proceedings and invoked as a ground for rejection Point 42 and 43 of the executive order N9 of the Minister of Defense dated 09/07/2015.

1. The incidents in the Armed Forces, as well as the information revealing their causes are considered classified information, based on the level of their secrecy and given the changes in the political and operative situation of the country;
2. Information revealing the investigation materials regarding the infringements in the Armed Forces is considered classified information, based on the level of their secrecy.

With an initiative of Peace Dialogue the trial of the lawsuit was temporarily suspended in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the executive order N9 of the Minister of Defense.

It should be noted that after exhausting all the remedies, the organization has sent an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). After the appeal to the ECHR the organization filed a motion to have the case removed from suspension.

Download Quarterly Report on the human rights situation in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia (Vol.3) (pdf, 238 kB)

Peace Dialogue NGO initiated the publication of this book within in the framework of the project Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia of Peace Dialogue NGO. The project Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia is supported by IKV Pax Christi.
This analysis has been prepared to expose the main mechanisms by which fatalities and other violations revealed during the preliminary investigations have been concealed. It is based on 22 cases, the short descriptions of which are in the Appendix in the end of the book.

ANALYSIS OF THE VIOLATIONS REVEALED DURING THE OBSERVATION OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND JUDICIAL PROCESSES REGARDING NON-COMBAT FATALITIES IN THE RA ARMED FORCES (1.26 mb)

Peace Dialogue is an Armenian non-governmental organization active in peacebuilding, democracy and human rights. One of the main spheres of its activities is monitoring of human rights violations in the RA Armed Forces, in pursuit of justice and initiation of public debate on current issues in the Armenian Armed Forces, particularly aimed, but not limited to, at seeking relevant solutions and promoting those solutions by presenting them to the Armenian authorities and relevant international actors. The report is a concise version of the comprehensive information that we publish on our site www.safesoldiers.am. The website is updated regularly.

This report covers the following topics:

1. Human Rights in the garrison detention cells of the RA Ministry of Defense.
2. Measures for the Prohibition and Elimination of non-statutory relations, including hazing in the Armed Forces and promotion of a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation of non-combat deaths in the army.
3. Taking measures for the prevention of the human rights violations in the army, as well as implementing activities aimed at raising awareness about the human rights protection mechanisms.
4. Preparation of an annual thematic report by the Ombudsman on the human rights situation in the Armed Forces.
5. Peace Dialogue NGO expert R. Martirosyan and journalist T. Yenokyan were invited to the Investigative Committee.
6. Peace Dialogue’s on-going court cases and their current status:

A.    Update on the court case of the death of Private Manuchar Manucharyan

B.    Update on the court case of the death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan

C.    The organization’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: Peace Dialogue NGO vs. RA

1. Human Rights in the garrison detention cells of the RA Ministry of Defense.

There are still military garrison detention cells (isolators) in the Republic of Armenia. These are places of detention under the supervision of the RA Ministry of Defense, where the soldiers are imprisoned as a disciplinary penalty by the commander or they serve as a detention place for keeping an alleged offender soldier before the soldier will be transferred to the relevant agencies.

According to the military expert of PD Rouben Martirosyan, there are isolators of Military Police in all regions of Armenia, where the MP Officers beat the detained soldiers in order to extort false testimonies from them. “Due to all those false testimonies the intentional murders in the army are presented as suicides, murders by negligence, or killing by the enemy sniper.  There are many facts and evidence in the Sargis Sahakyan’s, Torgom Sarukhanyan’s  and Artak Nazaryan’s  cases when pressure was put on soldiers in the isolators in order to extort false testimony from them.”- states Mr. Martirosyan.

Back in 2014 Peace Dialogue NGO referred to the human rights issues in the garrison detention cells. An article “With the intervention of Ombudsman the conditions of disciplinary isolation cells (isolators) were considerably improved” posted in the News section of the official website of the RA Ombudsman mentioned that the RA Ministry of Defense replaced the beds attached on the Military police disciplinary isolation cell walls and lockable metal beds and secured each soldier with minimum living space provided by law.

Meanwhile in 2011 the Deputy Defense Minister Ara Nazaryan announced that “the paragraph about sending the soldier to the disciplinary detention cell was removed from the draft law of the RA MoD Military Disciplinary Code”. According to him the elimination of the mentioned disciplinary penalty was one of the major changes in the draft law which did not correspond to the Constitution since detention can be carried out only by a court decision. By the new disciplinary regulations, the undisciplined soldiers should serve in the disciplinary battalion, instead of serving the penalties in the isolators.

In reference to the above-mentioned statements, PD sent inquires  to the Ombudsman to find out the reason why the RA MoD disciplinary isolators were improved when their existence is contrary to the constitution. After all, according to the RA Constitution, a person can be deprived of liberty only by a court judgment entered into force.

It should be noted that the Ombudsman’s office sent some clarifications to Peace Dialogue regarding the article “With the intervention of the Ombudsman the conditions of disciplinary isolation cells (isolators) were considerably improved”. For example, the Ombudsman mentioned that the article was talking not about the disciplinary isolators of the Military Police (although it was mentioned in the article), not about the detention places for arrested soldiers or those who were sentenced to detention by court, instead it was about the detention cells of the Disciplinary Battalion of Kanaz hospital and the RA MoD Lori region garrison isolators. However, so far Peace Dialogue has not received comprehensive answers to the issues raised, neither from the Ombudsman nor from the Ministry of Defense.

Nevertheless, the observation of the RA government decisions of 2015 shows that under government’s decision N 111 issued on 15.01.2015, the first sub-paragraph of point 109 of the RA Government’s Action Plan 2015 particularly mentions that by the Government decision N595 issued on May 22, 2008 there are clarifications and changes made in the internal regulations of the Republic of Armenia Defense Ministry’s military detention cells, which are related to the living conditions of the places of detention for the persons arrested or sentenced to punishment in the disciplinary detention cells. The issues were recorded during daily activities, as well as during the visits of the RA Human Rights Defender’s office employees.

At the same time, the first sub-paragraph of Point 110 of the Action Plan for National Strategy on Human Rights Protection approved by N 111 decision of the RA Government dated 15.01.2015 particularly talks about the necessity of introducing a draft law on making amendments and additions to the RA Law of “Military Police”. The Government’s decision particularly states:

“In the current law there are no regulations that define the functions of the Military Police in the disciplinary company, disciplinary battalion and disciplinary isolators, in the meantime, the operational duties, requirements for professional activities and working skills of the Military Police officers are not clearly defined, which essentially creates problems of transparency in the military activities of the police, and in the process of ensuring defense and guarantees of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the armed forces.

Peace Dialogue NGO sent inquiries to the RA MoD regarding the mentioned government decisions to find out:

1. What actions have been taken by the Ministry towards the implementation of the government decision so far?
2. What is the reason that the action defined by the Action Plan 2015 has not been implemented so far?
3. When is the mentioned action expected to be implemented?

In response to PD’s inquiry, the Ministry of Defense states that, in accordance with the Constitutional amendments, a deadline was set by the Government decision in March 2016 for submitting a draft law until the first week of December 2017.

It is still not clear how the approval of the internal regulations of the RA MoD garrison disciplinary isolators, the revoking of the Government’s decision N 595 issued on May 22, 2008 and making amendments and additions in the RA Law on Military Police will affect the situation of the human rights in the MoD garrison disciplinary isolators, therefore after receiving additional information regarding these issues we will certainly refer to this topic in our follow up reports.

2. Measures for the Prohibition and Elimination of non-statutory relations, including hazing in the armed forces and promotion of prompt, impartial and thorough investigation of non-combat deaths in the army.

According to the observations carried out by Peace Dialogue NGO regarding the fatalities in the Armenian and NK Armed Forces, the number of death cases is 162. Moreover, 80 of them were recorded during the “four-day” war in April, 2016. Within the same period there were 7 murders and 12 suicides recorded by the organization, while 28 soldiers died as a result of the ceasefire regime violation, 14 soldiers in fatal incidents, two soldiers as a result of health issues, and 4 soldiers as a result of breach of safety rules. One soldier died in yet unknown circumstances by being electrocuted. The organization has not received comprehensive information about the causes of death of 13 soldiers and one volunteer yet. It is important to mention that the presented numbers are based on the data released by the official institution in one way or another. However, due to constant monitoring from 2013, Peace Dialogue recorded several cases that the investigative bodies investigate the case in a wrong direction. This is to stress the importance of the civil society control for the promotion of prompt, impartial and thorough investigation of non-combat deaths in the army.

In the Paragraph 35 of the National Strategy on Human Rights Protection adopted by the RA Government on February 27, 2014, it was assigned to strengthen the measures for the elimination of the non-statutory relations in the armed forces until the fourth quarter of 2016, as well as to ensure a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation of non-combat deaths in the army. The government assigned the RA Ministry of Defense as a responsible body for implementing this action.

In regards to the government’s decision Peace Dialogue sent an inquiry to the RA MoD requesting the following information.

1. What actions exactly have been carried out by the RA MoD for the elimination of non-statuary relations in the RA armed forces as of the deadline set by the RA Government?
2. What measures or actions of special training have been carried out for raising awareness about the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and for whom?
3. If such actions were carried out, representatives of how many organizations and how many people took part in them, what results were recorded after the implementation of those actions?
4. We kindly ask you, if possible, provide us with an official document or any other source that verifies the implementation of the RA MoD actions and measures aimed at elimination and prohibition of non-statutory relations in the armed forces.

In a response letter from the MoD it was mentioned that a number of activities were carried out with the employees of Military Police, the internal office for the Staff Issues, and the RA MoD, as well as with the pre-conscription age children with the support of the OSCE Yerevan office. For example, it was mentioned that the RA Military Police implemented a number of activities with the participation of the regional divisions; together with the commanders direct meetings were held with the soldiers inclined to indiscipline, as well as with parents, war veterans and others; visits to trials were organized. The Military Police staff each month at least three times carried out military service in the combat posts.

In cooperation with the OSCE Yerevan office, trainings were held in the military units with the recruits by expert teams of sociologists, lawyers, and psychologists. Psychological features of a serving recruit were presented with specific examples and general recommendations were made for preventing possible negative behavior which may results in such cases. In the framework of the trainings on human rights, including the ones aimed at raising awareness among the conscripts about the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, trainings have been held on Human Rights in the armed forces since 2014 with the support of the OCSE Yerevan office.  

According to the information provided by the MoD, representatives of Military Police and of the internal office for the Staff Issues took part in the training. The training focused on introducing the first generation of human rights, as well as developing practical skills and simulation court games on the topics of the right to life, respect for dignity, and exclusion of torture and other cruel, inhuman treatment and other relevant topics.

Moreover, in the response letter of the MoD it was mentioned that the issues of torture and other forms of ill-treatment were discussed during the training sessions supported by the OCSE Yerevan office, in which the staff of the RA MoD Military Police disciplinary companies, recruits, officers and pre-conscription age schoolchildren took part.

However, from the answer it is not clear why in the approaches for the prevention and elimination of the non-statutory relations in the armed forces the emphasis was put specifically on the psychological aspect and not on raising the legal awareness or the development of respect towards human rights and democratic values. Besides, it is also not clear how many people participated in those sessions in total and what results were achieved. The Peace Dialogue NGO has not been able to obtain any evidence confirming the implementation of the aforementioned actions.

3. Taking measures for the prevention of the human rights violations in the army, as well as implementing activities aimed at raising awareness about the human rights protection mechanisms.

To increase general awareness of pre-conscription age schoolchildren regarding the military service and the rights and duties of soldiers, the RA Government under its decision N 303 of the National Strategy on Human Rights Protection adopted on February 27, 2014, assigned an action called “Implementation of concrete actions aimed at preventing human rights violations in the armed forces, and raising awareness about the mechanisms of human rights protection.”

With that action, it is expected to increase general awareness of pre-conscription age schoolchildren about the military service and the rights and duties of soldiers, and review, if necessary, the methodology of teaching about the military service and the rights and duties of soldiers, and the human rights in the armed forces in general within the framework of a school classes on Primary Military Training.

By the governmental decision, the following bodies were assigned as responsible bodies for the implementation of the action:

• The RA Ministry of Defense
• The Office of the RA Human Rights Defender (with their agreement)
• The RA Ministry of Education and Science

The deadline for the action was set for the second quarter of 2016.

Peace Dialogue has sent inquiries to the aforementioned institutions to find out the following:

1. As of the deadline set by the government’s decision, what concrete actions were carried out for increasing the general awareness of pre-conscription age schoolchildren about the military service and the rights and the responsibilities of the soldiers? Based on what methodology were these actions carried out among pre-conscription age schoolchildren?
2. How many educational institutions were involved in these actions (we asked for a list), and how many schoolchildren participated?
3. Was there a necessity to revise the methodology of teaching about the rights and responsibilities of the soldiers, and human rights in the armed forces in general within the framework of the school classes on Primary Military Training?
4. If the methodology of the school classes on Primary Military Training was revised, where can the modified methodology or methodological manual be found? Which state and public institutions have been involved in developing the new methodology?

From the response that we received from the RA Ministry of the Science and Education and the RA Ministry of Defense it is clear that the actions taken to increase the general awareness about the military service, and the rights and the responsibilities of the soldiers are also carried out with the support of the OSCE Yerevan office, particularly within the framework of the school classes on Primary Military Training (PMT).

In the response letter, it is particularly mentioned that at the moment actions are underway to review the textbook on teaching the PMT, which is scheduled to be completed in 2017.

Despite the fact that the response letter talks about the effectiveness and successful implementation of the project, it is not clear yet what were the indicators of the success and how the evaluation of the project was carried out.

Neither the RA Ministry of Defense nor the Ministry of Education and Science did provide Peace Dialogue with information about the methodology that was used for the implementation of the activities among the pre-conscription age schoolchildren. The agenda of the activities was also not provided.

It was not mentioned how many institutions were involved in the activities and how many schoolchildren took part in the activities.

It should be noted, that Peace Dialogue NGO has prepared a project called “The dissemination of human rights protection mechanisms among the pre-conscription age young people” regarding the issues discussed, which aims at improving the human rights situation in the RA Armed Forces, particularly by increasing the level of legal awareness among the future conscripts.

4. Preparation of an annual thematic report by the Ombudsman on the human rights situation in the Armed Forces.

Under the Action Plan for National Strategy on Human Rights Protection approved by #303-N decision of the RA Government dated February 27, 2014, Paragraph 114 defines the following: “Pursuant to the RA law on “Human Rights Defender”, prescribe the publication of an annual theme report on the situation of human rights in the RA Armed Forces according to PACE 1742 (2006) Recommendation via the RA law on “Human Rights Defender” prior to the establishment of the institute of Military Ombudsman.

The deadline of the action is set to be the first quarter of 2016; however the mentioned report by the Human Rights Defender was not published. In response to PD’s inquiry, Ombudsman Arman Tatoyan mentioned that, nevertheless, a special report is being prepared as a summary of the situation of the human rights in the armed forces for 2016.

5. Peace Dialogue NGO expert R. Martirosyan and journalist T. Yenokyan were invited to the Investigative Committee.

On August 21, 2016 an article entitled “How the army mafia works” was published in the Lragir.am website. After its publication, the PD expert R. Martirosyan and the author of the article journalist T. Yenokyan were invited to the Investigative Committee via a phone call.

It should be noted that R. Martirosyan refused to present to the Investigative Committee because of being summoned in such an improper way (via a phone call) and said he would do so only after receiving a proper notice in writing.

In order to receive clarifications regarding the invitation to the Investigative Committee, Peace Dialogue NGO sent inquiries to the RA Investigative Committee, the General Prosecutor’s Office, and the RA Human Rights Defender with the following questions:

1. What materials of criminal case are being prepared regarding Mr. Martirosyan’s interview (the number of the materials was asked to be provided)?
2. Why Mr. Martirosyan is not informed about this process in a proper manner?
3. Why those who prepare the materials against Mr. Martirosyan are not interested in the facts that he possesses.  
4. In what way can we present to the investigators all the materials at our disposal?
5. Under which article of the Criminal Code the investigator is given the right to invite the person who reported about a crime to the Investigative Committee via a phone call and inform him about the materials initiated.

In a response letter of the Prosecutor’s Office it was mentioned that the Investigative Committee has prepared materials, however, there was a decision made to reject the initiation of a criminal case taking into consideration that the evidence of reporting about a specific crime was absent in the published article. It was also mentioned that the Investigators invited Mr. Martirosyan to give explanations via a phone call which is not forbidden by the Criminal Procedure Code. In the letter received from the Investigative Committee it was mentioned that R.Martirosyan did not report about a crime and that the materials were initiated not based on the publication of a citizen but a media outlet. 

6. Peace Dialogue’s on-going court cases and their current status.

Peace Dialogue provides legal support to all those citizens whose rights were violated or are being violated during their military service. The organization also provides support to the family members of the soldiers who died in relatively non-combat conditions acting as the victim’s legal representative during the stages of investigation and trial.

A. Update on the court case of the death of Private Manuchar Manucharyan.

According to the official version on July 31, 2013 at approximately 1:40 pm. Private RA army Manuchar Meruzhan Manucharyan (Born in 1994, drafted in spring 2012 from Vanadzor commissariat, serving at military unit # 24923 located in Kanaker) while on service on the watchtower, shot himself to the chin three times from 5.54 mm rifle gun and died instantly.

A few days later, the victim’s brother Onik Meruzhan Manucharyan who is representing the victim in the murder case and his legal representative Peace Dialogue NGO expert Ruben Martirosyan were convinced that a false and biased investigation was carried out.

During the court hearing on July 21, 2016  over the suicide case of Private Manuchar Manucharyan (according to the official version he was driven to suicide) the Judge partially accepted the joint motion of the defendant and the injured party to have a new posthumous forensic medical examination.

Thus, it is envisaged that considering the newly discovered circumstances, a new expert opinion will be given by the same expert organization.

Peace Dialogue’s expert explains that the situation of this case is unique and unprecedented: all the evidence points that there was a fourth gunshot wound on Manuchar Manucharyan (from behind, in the area of the thigh bone). Mr. Martirosyan insists that it was not a suicide but a murder.

If the same expert organization changes its report based on the newly revealed evidence, the supplementary examination may result in an acquittal verdict and the case may be returned to the preliminary investigative body for a new investigation.

It should be noted that the supplementary examination is underway for already six months. The first examination was carried out within two months, whereas the criminal case material (7 volumes) was far more extensive that the court documents and less time must have been required for the investigation of the latter.

The trial of this case is underway and it will enter a new stage after the upcoming expert results will be revealed.

B. Update on the court case of the death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan.

According to the criminal case, Private Haroutyun Hambaryan shot himself to the forehead on May 8, 2015 from a rifle gun attached to him. The same day the RA Investigative Committee initiated a criminal case and an investigative group was formed.

On May 21 a soldier of the same unit D. Haroutyunyan was arrested and charged under Article 359, Part 1 (Breach of relations, prescribed by field manuals, between servicemen not subordinated to each other, expressed in humiliation of the person’s honor and self-esteem, persecution or violence) and Article 360, Part 1 (Insulting a serviceman, i.e. humiliation of honor or self-esteem concerned with the implementation of one’s service duties, by another serviceman) of the RA Criminal Code.  D. Haroutyunyan has not accepted the charges against him.

7 months following the incident charges were brought to Arthur Sevumyan, Haykaz Matevosyan, Hovhannes Melkonyan, and Smbat Hayrapetyan. The accused soldiers, unlike Havid Haroutyunyan, confessed that they were guilty.

The legal successor of the victim (his father) does not agree with the suicide hypothesis brought by the preliminary investigative body. He is convinced that his son did not commit a suicide but was murdered. He turned to the Peace Dialogue NGO and the organization’s expert criminologist Rouben Martirosyan became involved in the case and now, during the preliminary investigation and judicial phases of the case, he acts as the representative of the victim’s successor. During the court proceedings, R. Martirosyan filed the appropriate complaints to all relevant authorities and presented facts that the preliminary investigative body, particularly the investigator N. Avetisyan, committed 3 violations in the case:

1. Openly covered up the murder through false and biased investigation;
2. The investigator extracted and destroyed a number of important documents from the criminal case which were pointing to one or more people who committed the actual murder that the Army is trying to present as the suicide;
3. In gross violation of the Criminal Procedural Code, he sent the case to the Court depriving the aggrieved party of the opportunity of motions, provided by law. The motions that could file the missing aspects of the investigation and disclose the intentional murder.

In the response to a number of complaints, the Peace Dialogue NGO received a letter which read that by the decree of the Head of the Investigative Committee a service investigation is carried out by the Security Department of the Investigative Committee. However, later, the employee of the same department in a phone conversation with the aggrieved party mentioned that an investigation is carried out by the order of the RA President’s office. On August 10 the Peace Dialogue NGO received a letter from the Head of the Security Department stating that a penalty was appointed against the investigator.

The judicial proceedings of the case is still underway. During the past quarter no trail took place.

C. The organization’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: Peace Dialogue NGO vs. Republic of Armenia.

Since its formation one of the aims of Peace Dialogue NGO has been the human rights protection in the armed forces and promoting impartial and transparent investigation of offenses.

Since 2012 Peace Dialogue NGO implemented a number of projects aimed at protecting human rights in the armed forces. In particular, the organization provided support to the legal successors of the soldiers who died in relatively peaceful conditions by protecting the rights of the successors in court, promoted raising public awareness about the human rights situation in the army, promoted the documentation of the death cases and offenses in the army, their analysis and the prepared recommendations aimed at preventing such cases.

In the framework of its project “Safe soldiers for a Safe Armenia” the organization created a database www.safesoldiers.am which includes more than 940 fatalities in the armed forces. In order to receive clarification regarding these issues, Peace Dialogue NGO has sent inquiries to the RA MoD numerous times, which however remained unanswered or were rejected on various grounds.

On November 7, 2014 Peace Dialogue applied to the RA Minister of Defense requesting that the ministry provides official information on the death of soldiers for the period of 1994-2014, including the full names of the deceased soldiers, the location of the incidents, the dates, the unit numbers, the respective unit commander’s full names and ranks, the cause of death and a brief description of the incident. However, no answer was given to that inquiry.

On January 17, 2015 Peace Dialogue filed a lawsuit at the Administrative Court, under the bases that the information requested in the inquiry dated 07/11/2014 was not provided within a period prescribed by law, and requested administrative penalties against the Minister under Article 189.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Based on the paragraph that guarantees seeking, receiving and imparting information and based on the norms of the Law on Freedom of Information.

Peace Dialogue filed another lawsuit to the Administrative court against the RA MoD requesting to oblige the Minister of Defense to provide the information requested in an inquiry dated 07/11/2014.  During the court proceedings dated 12/08/2015 the Ministry of Defense filed a motion to suspend the administrative proceedings and invoked as a ground for rejection Point 42 of the executive order N9 of the Minister of Defense. The organization applied to the Minister of Defense requesting to provide all the documents that serve the basis of the decree N 9, as well as the copies of all the documents that served the basis for preparing the “Expanded list of departmental information system of the RA Ministry of Defense, appropriate to classification.” However, the MoD answered that during the preparation of the executive order N9 the internal correspondence was performed confidentially and the copies of the documents cannot be provided.

The organization sent an appeal to the Administrative Court requesting to annul Point 42 and Point 43 of the executive order N 9 of the Minister of Defense dated 09/07/2015, since they contradict with the Article 9 of the RA Law on State and Official Secret which has a higher legal effect and which defines the extensive list of information on official and state secret.

This list of information however does not include the information mentioned in Point 42 and 43 of executive order N 9. Therefore, the encryption of the information was carried out with the violations of the encryption principles of legality, validity and timeliness. Moreover, the restriction of the right to seek and receive information provided by Article 27 of the RA Constitution and Article 10 of ESHR does not serve any legal purpose and it is unnecessary in democratic societies. It should be noted that all the motions to the Court to be provided with all the documents that served the basis for preparing an extensive list of classified information and the bases of the executive order N 9 were rejected by the Court.

After exhausting all the remedies, with the support of lawyers Moushegh Shoushanyan and Arthur Soukiasyan, who act as legal representatives of PD, the organization has sent an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The organization announced that the interference into its right to receive the mentioned information was not prescribed by law and was not based on the law, since the access to the mentioned information was limited by executive order N9 of the RA Minister of Defense dated 09/07/2015. The information mentioned in Point 42 and Point 43 of #9 executive order of the RA Minister of Defense and in the “Expanded list of departmental information system of the RA Ministry of Defense, appropriate to classification” is not included in the list of the classified information provided by the RA Law on State and Official Secret, does not fit into the formulations prescribed by law and does not ensure the implementation of the provisions of the law.

The organization also finds that the restriction of the information mentioned in Point 42 and Point 43 obviously does not aim at protecting the national security and the national Courts conclusions that the disclosure of the information mentioned in Point 42 and Point 43 of #9 executive order of the RA Minister of Defense will contain threat to the security of Armenia is purely an abstract conclusion since it does not provide real prove  that the disclosure of the information may present real threat to state security.

The organization argues that the vague and abstract reference of a threat to state security served one purpose only – to justify, under the excuse of protecting the public interest, not only the restriction of the organization’s right to receive information but also the restriction of the rights of family members of the deceased soldiers and to deny the right of the entire community to be informed about the causes of the death of the soldiers. This way the Ministry hinders the expansion of public discussion on the deaths in the armed forces which is aimed to reveal their causes, analyze the violations and develop proposals on preventing such cases.

Therefore, the organization was deprived of an opportunity to carry out the functions of a “public observer” and provide the public with accurate and reliable information and to initiate a platform for a public debate.

Peace Dialogue insists that in violation of the Article 6 (1) of the ECHR, the Administrative Court rejected the organization’s motion to be provided with justification within the judicial proceedings of the case challenging the Points 42 and 43 of the Executive Order N 9. The court deprived the organization of an opportunity to receive all necessary documents that would provide justification regarding the encryption of the information and the violations of the principle of timeliness. 

Thus, the Court deprived the organization of a very important opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the executive order and the opportunity to present the organization’s stand on this, putting the organization in a less favorable position compared to the opponent who had all the documents and the information.   

Further information about the case will be provided in our next quarterly reports.

Download Quarterly-Report-on-the-Human-Rights-Violations-in-the-RA-Military-Forces-Vol.2 (Vol.2) (pdf, 287 kB)

The Peace Dialogue NGO will represent interests of the family members of two victims: the parents of the conscripts Grigor Avetisyan and of Suren Aramyan, who were deceased in April 2016. Peace Dialogue engaged the organization’s expert Ruben Martirosyan to represent the families during the investigation and the trial, and assist them with expertise and legal advice as necessary.

The two soldiers Grigor Avetisyan and Suren Aramyan were friends and both were killed in a combat post on April 6, 2016. According to the parents, the investigation that has been carried out in the double murder case of their sons during the last tight months was biased, erroneous and illegal.
Grigor Avetisyan’s father Hermon Avetisyan said that there were a few factors that made him suspicious: “ The day of the incident, in the evening I was informed that my son’s body was being transferred from the combat post to Vardenis hospital. I left for Vardenis in order to accompany my son’s body. While I was standing in front of the hospital I noticed a white Niva model car in front of the hospital. When the driver of the car, a person in Military Police uniform who was unknown to me, opened the trunk of the car I noticed a few rifle guns in it. I went closer and saw five rifle guns in the trunk. They were without packaging and without a seal, they were laying there all open. I also noticed that one of the rifles had gunshot traces on it – there were bullet holes in the stock of the rifle, another gunshot hole was noticeable on the right of the metal casing and that part of the weapon was damaged. Taking into consideration that I had already heard that my son was murdered by a number of gunshot wounds, I immediately guessed that it was my son’s weapon. To clarify my doubts, I asked the above mentioned officer if it was my son Girgor’s weapon. The latter was not surprised by my question. My question did not surprise him, he only answered evasively that he did not know. When I received the ballistic and trace report number 16551603 from the investigator to which there were photos attached of my son’s AKM model rifle (rifle number ЯЛ-1486), I realized that I saw the same traces on the rifle that was in the trunk of the Niva model car. However, to my surprise, the experts were provided not with the five rifles which I saw in Vardenis, but only four of them: the fifth rifle had vanished somehow.”
The soldier’s father is convinced that a crime was committed. The preliminary investigative body did not have the right to transport the rifles in that condition or to hand them to someone else to say the least.
Moreover, according to the investigator, soldier Davit Doumikyan allegedly came to the Vardenis Military Police two days following the double murder and confessed that he murdered Avetisyan and Aramyan. However, according to the information that the aggrieved party received, Doumikyan withdrew his confessions later on announcing that those testimonies were extorted from him by “a tall colonel”.
The Peace Dialogue’s legal expert R. Martirosyan believes it is necessary to initiate a criminal case over Doumikyan’s statement that his testimonies were extorted from him illegally. Moreover, it is important to make sure that Doumikyan is released immediately and all the necessary conditions must be provided so that he can give new and true testimonies in the case.
In general, the dubious statements, tricks and manipulations used by the investigative body are numerous and are similar to those that occurred in all the other cases that were covered up. For example, this time, just like in the previous cases, no fingerprints were found on the rifles. Theoretically, the fingerprints could have been erased by the killers. However, since there was no investigation carried out over this case, it means, most probably, that the fingerprints were erased by the preliminary investigative body. It should be noted that one of the four rifles was not sent for a fingerprint investigation, which is a blatant procedural violation.
Perhaps, even if the fingerprints were found they could have belonged to the MP officer who was transporting the rifles without proper packaging. In general relevant to the rifles, it should be noted that it is necessary to identify the owner of the Niva car; find out why he had the rifles that were an evidence in the murder case; find out rifles’ numbers that were not found and not sent to the investigators; find them and send for the ballistics; at the same time find out who that rifle was bellonged to and where its owner was on the day of the incident.
Another suspicious circumstance is that the investigator “does not consider it appropriate” to carry out a forensic trace investigation of the clothes. Formally, that expertise has certainly been made, as evidenced by the expert opinion # 16551603, however, it can be concluded that the forensic trace examination of the clothing was done poorly. The experts mentioned a number of “non-gunshot” injuries on the clothes of the deceased soldiers, however they said nothing about how those occurred and when. Instead, the investigator of the case, abusing his official position and assuming the functions of an expert, gave an oral expert opinion on the injuries.
That is a blatant illegality and it is necessary to carry out a thorough forensic trace investigation of the clothes which will provide answers to the following questions:

1.Is there any evidence of a mechanical impact on clothing and injuries or signs that are not specific to operational deterioration?
2.If yes, where are they located and what features do they have?
3.Their nature and origin: are these injuries caused by a sharp cutting object?
4.What is the limitation period?

Moreover, as noted by the expert Ruben Martirosyan, the expert opinions given by the RA “Expertise Centre of the Republic of Armenia” a State Non-Profit Organization cannot be trusted. He stated: “As a representative of the victim’s successor in the murder case of Manuchar Manucharyan, I sent an inquiry titled “Reporting a crime” to both the General Prosecutor and the president of the Investigative Committee A. Hovsepyan and provided irrefutable evidence that the expert of the Expertise Center SNCO Mr. Hambardzumyan committed a crime by deliberately trying to cover up the fact of M. Manucharyan’s murder. Considering all the above mentioned factors, I don’t trust that expert and that expertise center and I am going to appeal to carry out an examination in another expertise center.”
There were a number of other inconsistencies. For example, according to the official hypothesis, a soldier at the same military base David Doumikyan, entered the tent barrack, opened fire and shot two soldiers in the leg and murdered Suren Aramyan who was sleeping in the tent. However, the bullets were nor found. Abusing his official position, the investigator did not send the tent, or any part of it, for an examination to find out whether there were traces on the tent characteristic to gunshot. Hermon Avetisyan has irrefutable evidence that the two soldiers of the military base Grigori Hrachya Sargsyan and Felix H. Hovhannisyan were illegally detained for nearly a month in the Military Police detention center in Martuni, Gegharkunik region.
The investigator of the case refuses to provide the aggrieved party with a commanding officer order appointing soldiers on the relevant duty at the crime scene in the “N” firing point and what weapons were attached to them. The investigator’s explanation is that the mentioned document is allegedly a military secret. Peace Dialogue’s expert believes that he simply wants to keep the aggrieved party uninformed. Thus, violating the RA Constitution, the second clause of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the decisions of the European Court, according to which both sides of the case, particularly the aggrieved party, should be provided with the sufficient information to enable them to carry out their functions under the law.
Based on all of the above mentioned, it should not be surprising that the aggrieved party has numerous questions, which is another prove that this case (just like the previous ones) is conducted by the authorities with many cover-ups.
The aggrieved party, with the support of Peace Dialogue and its expert Rouben Martirosyan, have sent numerous appeals and the crime reports to different instances, including the RA Ombudsman, General Prosecutor, the RA Prime Minister, and the RA President Serj Sargsyan, calling attention to the violations set forth above, with a request to verify all the mentioned facts and carry out an objective and in-depth examination of these facts, requesting to launch a new criminal case and identify and punish the perpetrators.
The aggrieved party challenged the 5th garrison division, and a formal appeal was made to assign the further investigation of the case to another investigative body so that the investigative body will provide the aggrieved party with all the necessary documents so that the latter will be able to carry out its functions.