In May 2015, during the preliminary investigation of the criminal case as to the cause of death of Private Haroutyun Hambaryan, his father, Hrayr Hambaryan, asked Peace Dialogue NGO for their assistance as he did not agree with the official version of his son’s death.

Mr. Hambaryan believes that a biased and false investigation was carried out accompanied by gross violations of Article 17, Point 3 of the Criminal Code which ensures comprehensive and objective investigation. In a complaint addressed to the Head of the RA Criminal Investigative Committee Aghvan Hovsepyan as well as to the head of the 3^rd garrison of the RA Investigative Committee, the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsman. According to the victim’s father, the investigative body from the very beginning qualified the murder as a suicide, conducted a biased investigation by concealing or distorting the facts and seeks to “prove” by any means that it was in fact a suicide.

According to Private Davit Haroutyunyan’s testimony, not long before the incident Private Hambaryan had a serious confrontation with his fellow servicemen, particularly with Hovhannes Melkonyan and Smbat Hayrapetyan during which while defending himself he even tried to stab Smbat Hairapetyan. The preliminary investigative body attempted to ignore this most important fact. Smbat Hairapetyan was not subjected to forensic examination until after the persistent requests of David Harutyunyan’s defender. According to expert opinion many scars were indeed found on Smbat Hayrapetyan’s right and left hands, including injuries caused by a sharp object.

Hrair Hambaryan insists that his son was very strong and would never let anyone hurt him or put pressure on him. Once in a phone conversation with his sister he even said that he had a conflict with some soldiers but he managed to resist them.

The preliminary investigative body was not willing to carry out an objective and thorough investigation. Although it has been seven months since the incident the investigative body still has not provided the ballistic and fingerprint experts reports on the weapons claiming that they have not yet been received.

Meanwhile, the investigator, N. Avetisyan denied a motion to send the victim’s clothes for fingerprint examination saying that it would take a long time for that and the criminal case may be delayed for years. The same investigator rejected the motion to send the victim’s clothes for forensic chemical and forensic biological examination saying that it is groundless and will provide nothing. All this is blatantly illegal and goes to show the interest of the preliminary investigative body’s interest only, not the deceased or his families.

According to the forensic expert’s opinion, Private Hambaryan was shot from the distance of one meter, however the investigator still insists that he put the rifle on his forehead and shot himself.  The same expert opinion also indicates traces of scratches and hematoma on the left temporal region which were caused by a blunt object while he was still alive. The investigators did nothing to find out who had hit him.

The victim’s father put all these facts into his complaint and expressed his bewilderment over the inaction of the relevant bodies. In addition, he challenged the head of the 3^rd garrison department, the investigators and the prosecutor in control of the department and inquired about handing the criminal case to another investigative department and ask for a new, objective and comprehensive investigation to be carried out.

The challenge however was rejected by the RA Military Prosecutor A. Haroutyunyan.

The expert of Peace Dialogue NGO Ruben Martirosyan immediately found some vivid “irregularities.” Despite the eight-page detailed report of different injuries and traces on Smbat Hayrapetyan’s hand and their causes such as cutting grass, digging trenches, playing with cats and punching the wall for no reason, the investigator did not question the expert on the possible ways of obtaining such injuries and simply “believed” the defendant and despite the severity of the injuries, “did not exclude” that the victim could have obtained them in daily life. It is also not clear why the results of ballistic and fingerprint examinations of the weapon and the ballistic examination of the clothes that were assigned on May 9, shortly after the incident had not been received although it had been six months since then they were requested.

It is even more surprising that despite the lack of results from the examinations the preliminary investigative body considers it a proven fact that it was a suicide and that the suicide weapon was the deceased soldier’s rifle.

The report touched upon the direction of the rifle and how the shot was made but only mentioned the words of the victim’s successor without explaining how it was possible to commit a suicide pointing the rifle in the head from top to down.

The rejection letter does not even say that the preliminary investigative body refused to carry out ballistic and forensic chemical and biological examinations of the victim’s clothes, although according to expert Rouben Martirosyan it is not acceptable and that this fact suggests that it was done in order to take the investigation to the wrong way and justify the suicide hypothesis. The results of all these examinations would simply show that before the death violence was used against the victim.

This scope of this Law shall include those citizens of the Republic of Armenia who, through violation of the existing law, were not conscripted for compulsory military service over the period from the call-up of the autumn of 1992 to the date of the enactment of this Law, then turned 27 or were, in conformity with the established procedure, qualified for exemption from compulsory military service or granted an extension (hereinafter referred to as “citizens with compulsory military service not completed”).

THE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA ON CITIZENS WHO FAILED TO COMPLETE COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE THROUGH VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE (pdf)

Peace Dialogue NGO received a letter from the Ministry of Defense in response to its appeal to the RA Administrative Court of Appeal. The response presents the objections of the RA Ministry of Defense.

In a response to the administrative appeal submitted to the RA Administrative Court of Appeal by Peace Dialogue, the defendant (MoD) of the administrative case 5357/05/15 built its objections by distorting the facts. In particular, the defendant based their claims on the fact that allegedly Peace Dialogue NGO had not applied to the RA Ministry of Defense requesting the documents that serve as the basis for the contested order neither before submitting a complaint to the court nor after applying for it.

But in reality, before submitting an appeal to the Administrative Court on August 19, 2015 the organization applied to the Minister of Defense, Seyran Ohanyan, requesting to be provided with:

1. The copies of the documents that serve the basis for the executive order number 9 of the Minister of Defense.
2. The copies of the documents that served the basis for compiling the list of information regarding the Ministry of Defense that is subject for encryption.

The RA Ministry of Defense sent a response letter on September 25, 2015 refusing to provide these documents and arguing that the documents are confidential, and are not subject to review.

In addition to this request, Peace Dialogue NGO in its administrative appeal requested the defendant to provide the grounds for the executive order; however the Court rejected the request.

According to the lawyers of Peace Dialogue NGO, A. Sukiasyan and M. Shoushanyan, the conclusions of the administrative court would have been justified if the Administrative Court handled the case based on the documents that serve the basis for the executive order number 9 of the RA Minister of Defense and if those documents contained information about the threat to the political and military situation of the country mentioned by the Court.

Attached are the copies of the Peace Dialogue NGO’s appeal and the response of the RA Ministry of Defense.

The RA Administrative Court of Appeal in its decision of April 25, 2016 allowed Peace Dialogue NGOs appeal against the RA Administrative Court’s decision (11.03.2016) to proceed. The Administrative Court had rejected the organization’s appeal 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 RA Ministry of Defense and to partially annul the executive order.

According to lawyers Arthur Sukiasyan and Mushegh Shushanyan, who are representing the interests of Peace Dialogue NGO, they appealed on the grounds that a significant aspect of procedural law violations is that an appeal is allowed so that the Court can examine the application to annul the points of the Executive Order, however, the materials which are supposed to serve as the basis for making the contested order were lacking in the case when it was heard by the Administrative Court. Therefore, the Court’s findings and conclusions are not based on the actual materials in question. The Court had also dismissed the plaintiff’s motion requesting the examination of evidence thus depriving the applicant an opportunity to fully present its position and claims. The Administrative Court’s decision ignored the clear restrictions of classifying the information as state or official secrets as defined in the Article 9 of the RA Law on “State and Official Secret”. The justification for rejecting the application, the Administrative Court said.

“…taking into consideration the field (military) to which the information listed in point 42 and 43 and the nature of that information, the Court finds that in specific military or political situation the disclosure of such information in objective reality may contain a threat for the security of Republic of Armenia.”

The lawyers feel that by accepting the appeal the court is suggesting that these actions undermine the requirement of preserving the law and gives too many opportunities for individual self-interest over the rule of law. Their decision could imply that any administrative body can ignore the law, legal regulations and other restrictions prescribed by law and guided only by their personal perception or vision of the need for secrecy under the guise of public interest, thus arbitrarily restricting people’s rights and freedoms.

According to lawyers M. Shushanyan and A. Sukiasyan all the conclusions made in the judicial act in this regard are groundless because the Administrative case does not contain any information about the Armenia’s military or political situation or about the threat to Armenia’s security. It would have been lawful to make conclusions such as this if the Court could investigate the materials that served as a basis for the Executive Order and if those material do contain information about a specific political and/or military situation and the security threats mentioned by the Court.

The Court made its decision in the absence of relevant information in the administrative court, thus making a judicial act with no justification which contains absolutely no explanation how the encrypted information can influence the political and military situation of the Republic of Armenia and threaten the security of Armenia.

Among other errors the Administrative Court made during the trail and in rejecting the appeal, the lawsuit states that the Court violated the plaintiff’s right of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention. Paragraph 1 of this Article provides that the right to freedom of expression, among other rights, includes the freedom of receiving and sharing information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of boundaries.

Photo is from http://www.epress.am/

In response to the announcement posted on the RA Ministry of Defense website inviting non-governmental organizations to send proposals for designing a draft action plan for the period of 2017-2019 stemming from the provisions of the strategy for the protection of Human Rights, Peace Dialogue NGO sent the following suggestions to the RA Ministry of Defense.

1. Raising awareness and improving knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms:

1.1     Human rights are to be included as a compulsory school subjectin the curricula of educational institutions under the Ministry of Defense authorization (for example, the RA MoD Military Institute after Vazgen Sargsyan)

1.2     Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War as well as the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 to be included in the curricula of the above mentioned institutions.

1.3     Regularly organize human rights trainings with the involvement of local and international experts for the senior and junior officers serving in the armed forces (if such initiatives have been implemented or are still being implemented to insure their continuity and consistency.

2. Protection of human rights to ensure the maximum transparency of management.

2.1     To remove the information that does not contain state secrets and is not a threat to national security from the list of Encrypted informationprovided by Executive Order N9 of the Ministry of Defense; offense, infringement of the right to life, torture and ill-treatment cases make available to the public.

2.2     Highlighting thepractical application of the Law on Alternative Service as a mechanism for the protection of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and religion, we propose to develop measures to raise the level of awareness of the public regarding the application of the law.For example, in all the military commissariats of Armenia, in visible areas, post informative materials and posters about the possibility of an alternative service and the opportunity of replacing the compulsory military service with alternative military service within the 6 months of being drafted into the army.

2.3     Submit a proposal to the RA Government and National Assembly for the establishment of the institution of an independent military ombudsman.

2.4    Corruption risks in the RA Armed forces provide a soil for human rights violations: we suggest, with the involvement of the local and international experts, to develop and publish a strategic plan to combat corruption in the armed forces, then, to provide a basis for monitoring the implementation of the strategy by public institutions.

2.5     Submit a proposal to the RA Government for establishing a monitoring group in the military units under the supervision of the RA Armed Forces which, if necessary, will be able to visit the military police detentions for the protection of the detained soldiers.

2.6     Provide regular reports to public regarding the actions and the measures taken by the defense department in the framework of the National Strategy of the Human Rights.

3. About the proper health care and medical service in the Armed Forces.

3.1    In order to ensure the right to health of servicemen, introduce a system for compulsory medical examination before the demobilization of the servicemen (just like it is carried out during the recruitment process), which will allow for thestudyof the dynamics of the soldiers’ health so that in cases where there has been health deterioration during the mandatory military service MoD assumes the obligation for taking care of that problem.

4. About the implementation of the electoral rights of servicemen.

4.1     The protection of the electoral rights in the army must be reviewed to excludeany influence on the free will of the soldiers by the actions or inaction of the commanders.  All the candidates should have an equal opportunity to provide their promotional materials to the servicemen; all the servicemen must be free to use their right to vote or not to use. It is also necessary to provide real oversight of the mentioned measures.