Հրատարակություն

Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Armenia on Proactively Addressing Issues in Prisons, Raise Questions on Ensuring Police Accountability for Excessive Use of Force and Tackling the Criminal Subculture in Prisons

16 ապրիլի 2025

The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Armenia. Committee Experts commended the State on proactively addressing issues in its main prisons, while raising questions on ensuring the accountability of police officers for excessive use of force and tackling the criminal subculture within prisons.

Anna Racu, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed the swift and constructive response by the Armenian authorities regarding the "quarantine" and disciplinary blocks at Artik Prison, which were promptly closed for refurbishment, ensuring that these areas no longer remained in a state of severe disrepair. This proactive approach to addressing immediate concerns was commendable.

Peter Kessing, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said it had been reported that there were still cases where the police used excessive force in conflict with the Convention. Were audio or video recordings of police interrogation mandatory? Were taped interrogations routinely reviewed to identify potential instances and acts of torture? What initiatives had Armenia taken to prevent excessive use of force, including lethal force, by the police in future demonstrations and protests?

Ms. Racu said in Armenia, the influence of the criminal subculture significantly undermined the reputation of the prison administration. What measures had been taken by the Government to break down the informal hierarchies and criminal gangs and networks that had an informal power in many of Armenia’s penitentiary institutions? What steps were being taken to ensure that all prisoners, regardless of their social status or affiliations, had equal protection under the law and were not subject to discrimination or abuse, including sexual abuse by other inmates or informal leaders? What measures were being taken to address corruption among prison staff?

The delegation said in 2023, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was established as a civilian oversight body over the police. It was responsible for areas of public safety, security and disaster risk management, and was driven by the objective of introducing human rights-based approaches in policing and public services. The large-scale use of video surveillance in police operations ensured accountability of the police. Patrol police wore body cameras all the time, acknowledged by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture as an important tool for the prevention of torture.

The delegation said Armenia had produced a draft bill which criminalised granting, receiving, maintaining or belonging to the highest rank in the criminal hierarchy, as well as creating, leading, participating in or involving others in groups bearing a criminal subculture.

Since 2024, significant structural reforms had been undertaken and a new operational department now functioned within the central penitentiary service, containing an intelligence unit which was equipped with tools used by criminal police. From 2022 to 2024, 60 criminal cases were initiated and nine came from penitentiary institutions. Addressing the criminal subculture was a top priority for Armenia’s Ministry of Justice, the police and penitentiary units.

Introducing the report, Anna Karapetyan, Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia and head of the delegation, said based on its Constitution and ratified international treaties, Armenia had taken strong steps to establish legal provisions and capacities to combat torture and hold violators accountable. In 2021, the new Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes were adopted, followed by the adoption of the new Penitentiary Code in 2022. The new Criminal Code prescribed three levels of penalty according to the aggravating circumstances of torture and brought substantive changes to the procedure of initiating criminal investigations. While Armenia continued to uphold its human rights commitments domestically, the continued imprisonment, ill-treatment and torture of Armenian prisoners of war and other detainees held by Azerbaijan remained a concern.

In concluding remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the excellent and informative dialogue. The multilateral system was in deep crisis, at the political level and financially. However, despite all these restrictions, the Committee worked arduously, objectively and constructively to produce a positive impact on the lives of people in the States parties.

In her closing remarks, Ms. Karapetyan expressed sincere appreciation to the Committee for the excellent dialogue. The Committee’s comments and recommendations reinforced the shared responsibility held together for the prohibition of torture everywhere, under all circumstances.

The delegation of Armenia consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Prosecutor General; the Investigative Committee; and the Permanent Mission of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Armenia at the end of its eighty-second session on 2 May. Those and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpageOpens in new window. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found hereOpens in new window.

The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 17 April at 3 p.m. to conclude its consideration of the eighth periodic report of France (CAT/C/FRA/8).Opens in new window

Report

The Committee has before it the fifth periodic report of Armenia (CAT/C/ARM/5)Opens in new window.

Presentation of Report

ANNA KARAPETYAN, Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia and head of the delegation, said based on its Constitution and ratified international treaties, Armenia had taken strong steps to establish legal provisions and capacities to combat torture and hold violators accountable. Armenia had made notable progress in preventing torture and ill-treatment through several strategic reforms. The 2020–2022 Human Rights Action Plan envisaged 15 actions, including installing audio-video recording in interrogation rooms, developing the relevant guidelines on the investigation of cases of torture, and wide-scale training for professionals in law enforcement, healthcare, and justice, among others.

The ongoing 2023–2025 Human Rights Action Plan reinforced the absolute right to be free from torture, including through strengthening the reporting mechanism, enhancing the capabilities of the relevant Department in the Investigative Committee, and improving the conditions of the detention facilities in penitentiary institutions and courts. The 2020–2022 Police Reform Strategy led to a significant achievement in strengthening civilian oversight of the police, through the establishment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 2023. The 2019–2023 and 2023-2026 Penitentiary and Probation Strategies, along with a dedicated 2021–2022 plan on suicide prevention, contributed to better detention conditions and medical documentation practices.

In 2021, the new Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes were adopted, followed by the adoption of the new Penitentiary Code in 2022. The new Criminal Code prescribed three levels of penalty according to the aggravating circumstances of torture and brought substantive changes to the procedure of initiating criminal investigations. The new Criminal Procedure Code guaranteed the minimum rights of arrested persons, as outlined in article 110, which were aligned with international standards.

In 2021, the Government adopted a decree furthering the procedure of filling in and monitoring the medical examination protocol, which was extended to police detention facilities. In 2022, amendments were adopted to the Internal Regulations of Police Detention Facilities, making it mandatory to conduct medical examination of arrestees by ambulance in each case of admitting a new arrestee, regardless of the presence of bodily injuries or health complaints.

The adoption of the law on police guard in 2024 envisaged the establishment of the new police guard instead of the current police troops, shifting from a militarised service to the modern policing approach with a specialisation on crowd management. The law on advocacy ensured attorneys could communicate privately with clients, and detainees had the right to inform the third party of their detention. The new Penitentiary Code established the right of lawyers to freely meet their clients in prisons or detention facilities without requiring special permission for access. It was noteworthy that the Criminal Procedure Code required almost all types of investigative actions, including interrogations, to be audio and video recorded.

Following the dissolution of the Special Investigative Service in 2021, the mandate for investigating acts of torture was transferred to the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Armenia, where a dedicated division consisting of eight investigators was responsible for handling such cases. Allegations of torture or ill-treatment committed by investigators of the Investigative Committee were reviewed by the Anti-Corruption Committee. By 2024, 386 criminal proceedings were investigated, with 133 terminated and one case involving four individuals referred to court. In recent years two torture verdicts had been rendered, although neither had entered into force yet.

Alleged police violence was investigated under other articles of the Criminal Code; three police officers had been convicted for obstructing lawful professional activities of journalists during 2018 protests and were dismissed from the police service as a result of disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, three police officers were dismissed from service for obstructing lawful professional activities of journalists during mass protests of 2015.

The new Criminal Code also introduced new types of preventive measures that acted as non-custodial alternatives to detention, such as house arrest and administrative supervision. In 2024, these alternative preventive measures were applied to 1,587 defendants. Similarly, the new Criminal Code provided the limitation of liberty as an alternative to incarceration. The Civil Code now included provisions for redress for torture victims. Victims also had the right to rehabilitation, including compensation for medical care, and access to free psychological and legal services. This year within the implementation of the Human Rights Strategy and deriving Action Plan, a study was developed regarding the possible directions of the establishment of the rehabilitation centre. The new Codes were currently undergoing a monitoring phase; necessary steps would be taken to address any potential shortcomings which may arise.

Armenia had made significant progress in countering domestic violence, in particular through the new Criminal Code which defined "close relative," which included spouses and former spouses, as well as individuals in or formerly in marital relations.

While Armenia continued to uphold its human rights commitments domestically, the continued imprisonment, ill-treatment and torture of Armenian prisoners of war and other detainees held by Azerbaijan remained a concern. The Committee, in its most recent concluding observations on Azerbaijan, had expressed deep concern regarding Azerbaijan’s conduct and the ongoing detention of the 23 Armenian individuals, which remained. Ms. Karapetyan concluded by stating that Armenia was fully committed to the full and effective implementation of the Convention.

Questions by Committee Experts

PETER KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said since Armenia's last review by the Committee in 2017, progress had been made in prohibiting and preventing torture and ill-treatment. In particular, the Committee noted and commended the State party for the enactment of a fundamentally new Criminal Code, a new Criminal Procedure Code, and a new Penitentiary Code, which were very positive signs. Additionally, Armenia had joined the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and had undertaken significant reforms in the police, penitentiary, and justice sectors in recent years.

Could the delegation elaborate on specific cases and court decisions where Armenian courts had applied the principle in article 5 (3) of the Constitution and found that international law, including the Convention, took precedence over national law? Mr. Kessing commended Armenia and the Armenian Constitution for article 81, and the obligation to take the views of United Nations Committees into account when interpreting the Constitution, which illustrated a strong commitment to international law. Could cases be provided where the practice of the Committee had been taken into account when interpreting the Armenian Constitution?

It was reported that the definition of ‘State officials’ in Armenian law was narrow, and did not include staff working in psychiatric institutions or medical workers. Was this correct? Did this mean that those people working in psychiatric institutions or medical workers could not be investigated or prosecuted for torture? If this was the case, was Armenia considering amending and broadening the definition of ‘State officials’ in line with the obligation in the Convention against Torture? Pursuant to the new Criminal Code, no limitation periods were applicable to the offence of torture and the offence of abusing and exceeding public authority. Did this apply retroactively to past cases of torture? Was there still a statute of limitations in relation to civilian court cases concerning redress and compensation for torture?

Regarding the Virabyan case from 2012, could the delegation explain what decision the Armenian Court of Cassation had taken, after the court received the advisory opinion from the European Court of Human Rights in April 2022? Had the Armenian Court of Cassation handed down a decision? Had the police officer responsible for torturing Mr. Virabyan been held accountable? Could the delegation confirm that evidence and material extracted by use of torture or ill-treatment would always be excluded from court proceedings in Armenia? Were there concrete cases where Armenian courts had excluded torture-material?

According to the Council of Europe, Armenia had the second highest proportion of pre-trial detainees in Europe, with 53 per cent of the people in Armenian prisons being held in pre-trial detention; this was a very high rate. It was expected that the new Criminal Codes that entered into force during the second half of 2022 would help further reduce the number of remand prisoners. Had the necessary implementing laws and by-laws been adopted to ensure the full implementation of the new Criminal Codes? Had the new Criminal Codes reduced the number of remand prisoners? Could up to date information about the use of electric monitoring and other alternatives to detention be provided?

It had been reported that there were still cases where the police used excessive force in conflict with the Convention. What was the status of police reform? What concrete initiatives had been taken to date to reform the police? Were all individuals who were arrested informed about the reason for their arrest? Were audio or video recordings of police interrogation mandatory? Were taped interrogations routinely reviewed to identify potential instances and acts of torture?

What initiatives had Armenia taken to prevent excessive use of force, including lethal force, by the police in future demonstrations and protests?

Despite progress made by Armenia since the last review, it was reported that the quality of the investigations of police conduct remained a significant issue.

It was a positive sign that criminal cases concerning alleged police torture were initiated and investigated, but it was reported that torture cases often remained unsolved for many years and rarely led to criminal charges. Could updated information about the number of investigations into torture and ill-treatment over the last three years be provided?

The Committee had been informed that after the adoption of the new Criminal Codes, it was more difficult for lawyers to assist alleged victims of torture in court proceedings, due to the 30 per cent tax applied; was this correct? Could information about the legal and practical independence of the Investigative Committee of Armenia established in 2022 be provided? Was the Committee fully independent from the Police? Would Armenia take steps to ensure a more prompt and effective investigation of police complaints? Were alleged perpetrators of torture immediately suspended from their duties for the duration of the investigation?

During the last two examinations of Armenia by the Committee, the police’s excessive use of force in connection with a protest in March 2008 following the February elections, leading to the death of 10 people, was discussed. The Committee expressed its concern over the slow and ineffective investigation of the situation. What was the status of the investigation into the 2008 demonstration and later demonstrations? How many police officers had been identified and held accountable in disciplinary, civilian or criminal proceedings? What kind of sentences had they received? Had the victims been provided redress and compensation as required under the Convention?

The Committee was aware of reports alleging that Armenian forces had violated international humanitarian law and human rights law during the conflict. Had Armenia taken steps to ensure that alleged war crimes committed by Armenian forces during the conflict were promptly and impartially investigated by an independent body?

As part of a new expedited asylum procedure, there was a 15-day deadline for applying for asylum for asylum seekers arriving illegally to Armenia. Was this correct? If so, how many asylum requests had been rejected over the last three years due to the 15-day deadline? Was it correct that asylum seekers were being prosecuted for illegal entry in Armenia in conflict with domestic law and article 31 in the Refugee Convention that was ratified by Armenia? Would the State party take further measures to ensure that this practice was ended? What steps were taken to ensure that asylum seekers in detention had access to fair and efficient refugee status determination procedures, as well as appeals procedures with suspensive effect on the deportation order?

The Human Rights Defender of Armenia was established by law in October 2003, and since 2006 had been accredited “A” status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institution. In October 2024, the institution reiterated its recommendation that a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process for membership of the Human Rights Defender’s decision-making body must be included in relevant legislation. Had Armenia taken steps to implement this recommendation?

Was it true that the salaries of staff working in the Human Rights Defender’s office were lower than comparable positions in the public sector? What was the State party doing to remedy the situation? How many complaints of torture or ill-treatment had the Human Rights Defender received over the last three years? Could the Human Rights Defender recommend redress to a victim of torture or ill-treatment and criminal proceedings against alleged perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment? How did the State party follow-up on the recommendations of the national preventive mechanism?

The Committee hoped that Armenia would consider making a declaration under article 22 of the Convention and recognise the Committee’s competence to receive and consider individual complaints. This would provide redress to victims and assist Armenia in implementing the Convention and developing a justice system in line with international human rights law.

ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said since Armenia’s last review by this Committee in 2016, there had been notable advancements in the country’s human rights framework. Significant reforms had been made, including amendments to national legislation and the adoption of policies aimed at improving detention conditions and aligning with international standards. These positive steps were a testimony of Armenia’s commitment to enhance its legal and institutional frameworks to combat torture and ill-treatment and different forms of violence.

The Committee welcomed the fact that periodic professional trainings on the Convention and European Committee for the Prevention of Torture were carried out for the police and prison staff. The Committee commended the positive initiative that jurisprudence of the European Court for Human Rights was included in the common core curricula for judges, prosecutors, prison staff and civil servants. The National Strategy for Human Rights Protection (2020–2022) and its action plan emphasised the importance of capacity building for law enforcement and prison staff, including training on human rights and torture prevention. Had there been any other specific strategic documents that envisaged capacity building activities for law enforcement, judges and prosecutors and other groups with specific competencies under the Convention?

It was positive that the Armenian Government had managed to establish a good cooperation with international partners. The Police Academy and Penitentiary Service Training Centre had incorporated elements of human rights education into their curricula, while the introduction of specialised training modules on the absolute prohibition of torture had been a step forward. However, some sources indicated that there were some issues that continued to affect the overall effectiveness of the training programmes.

What oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure police officers were adequately trained and disciplined for misconduct related to the use of force or mistreatment during arrest or detention? What measures were in place to ensure that training on the Istanbul Protocol and the prohibition of torture was effectively applied in practice? Were the training programmes based on practical aspects, which emerged from specific cases or recorded human rights violations? With respect to the courses held for medical personnel, were there plans to provide mandatory training on the Istanbul Protocol, given its importance for proper documentation of torture?

Had the State party implemented any training programmes focused on the prevention of torture and the appropriate use of force for military personnel, intelligence officers, and security guards, particularly in the context of ongoing tensions related to the military conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh? How many officers had undergone this training and was it mandatory?

Could information on recent developments or reforms aimed at improving the living conditions and the treatment of inmates be provided? Had measures been taken to enhance oversight and accountability within the prison system? It was encouraging to note the significant progress made, particularly the comprehensive refurbishment of Abovyan Prison, including the reconstruction of the wing for mothers with children and the installation of ventilation and heating systems in the main accommodation areas of Armavir Prison. These initiatives were important steps forward in enhancing the material conditions for inmates and improving their overall living environment. Furthermore, the Committee welcomed the swift and constructive response by the Armenian authorities regarding the "quarantine" and disciplinary blocks at Artik Prison, which were promptly closed for refurbishment, ensuring that these areas no longer remained in a state of severe disrepair.

This proactive approach to addressing immediate concerns was commendable. These efforts reflected a commitment to addressing longstanding issues in Armenia’s prison system, and the Committee looked forward to seeing the continued actions for the refurbishment of Artik and Armavir Prisons.

Despite these positive developments, there were some concerns. The activities of the “Kosh” and “Hrazdan” penitentiary institutions were suspended on 1 January 2022. Despite the ongoing discussions on the need to suspend the activities of the “Nubarashen” penitentiary institution, it continued to operate. Could the delegation’s views regarding these institutions be provided? Could detailed information regarding the number of inmates in Armenian prisons over the past four years be provided? What steps had been taken to address overcrowding, including the use of non-custodial measures and alternatives to detention?

Current legislation in Armenia allowed for the restriction of family communication for up to one month for any violation, which contradicted the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) and European Prison Rules. What specific rehabilitation programmes were available for prisoners in Armenia? Could an update be provided on recidivism rates and the successful reintegration of former prisoners, as well as the approach of the Government on cooperation with civil society organizations for the benefits of inmates?

By transferring the competence of medical services to the Ministry of Justice and subsequently to the Ministry of Health, Armenia had taken important steps towards the independence of medical staff in detention. However, there were still some problematic areas. After the reform of medical prison services, how independent were the prison doctors from the prison administration? What systems ensured they could prioritise inmate health without external pressures? How was access to specialised medical treatment managed for inmates requiring complex care? What oversight mechanisms monitored the quality of healthcare services in prisons? What measures were implemented to prevent the spread of communicable diseases among inmates?

Could an update on harm reduction programmes for drug users, those with HIV and treatment for prisoners with disabilities be provided? What was the current level of medical equipment and medicines available in prisons? What specialised medical equipment and healthcare provisions were available for women in detention? What protocols were in place for documenting injuries from torture or violence, and could inmates and lawyers access these reports?

What rules and formal protocols existed for medical professionals to document injuries or signs of torture and ill-treatment? What training did medical professionals receive on identifying and reporting signs of torture and ill-treatment?

How were reports of torture and ill-treatment by medical professionals submitted to the competent authorities?

In 2023, there were 29 suicide attempts by 22 individuals, primarily concentrated in the "Nubarashen" and "Armavir" institutions. Submissions received from human rights non-governmental organizations indicated that many deaths were attributed to pre-existing health conditions and inadequate medical care. What were the delegation’s views on the effectiveness of the procedure for checking and assessing the risk of suicide and self-harm? What specific assessments were in place to identify individuals at risk? Were there cells with safe conditions with no easy access to means of killing oneself? What specific training programmes were provided to penitentiary staff regarding prevention and managing suicidal tendencies, self-harm behaviours, and instances of violence among inmates?

In Armenia, the influence of the criminal subculture significantly undermined the reputation of the prison administration. Despite the implementation of legislative amendments by the State to reduce the influence of the criminal subculture in penitentiary institutions and measures aimed at their practical application, the influence of the criminal subculture in places of deprivation of liberty still continued to exist. What measures had been taken by the Government to break down the informal hierarchies and criminal gangs and networks that had an informal power in many of Armenia’s penitentiary institutions? What steps were being taken to ensure that all prisoners, regardless of their social status or affiliations, had equal protection under the law and were not subject to discrimination or abuse, including sexual abuse by other inmates or informal leaders? What measures were being taken to address corruption among prison staff?

What specific measures had the Armenian Government implemented over the past few years to increase the number of prison staff? How had the Government addressed the issue of staff retention, including any changes to salaries, working conditions, or benefits aimed at reducing turnover among prison personnel?

What efforts were being made to ensure that staffing levels in penitentiaries met international standards, particularly concerning the ratio of staff to prisoners?

A Committee Expert said the Committee had received information that seven out of 10 children aged one to 14 years old were subject to psychological or corporal punishment. What was the State party doing to prevent violence against children? The Committee had also received reports which revealed concerning cases of violence against children with disabilities, including at a psychological care home in 2023, where a resident was restrained with chains. What measures had Armenia adopted to eliminate unauthorised physical restraints and other inhumane practices in care institutions?

Another Committee Expert asked if there were any Azerbaijanis who remained in Armenia’s custody? What procedures had been implemented to ensure any abuse of prisoners of war was fully investigated? Had there been any kind of arrangements aimed at ensuring the returning prisoner would be promptly investigated for torture cases by the receiving side? What measures had been taken to prevent discrimination and hate speech against those of Azerbaijani origin?

An Expert asked what training members of special teams received, and what were rules on the use of force? Was equipment deployed by special units certified? Was it imported or manufactured locally?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the monitoring of the Criminal Procedure Code had already led to 13 amendments. International law prevailed in Armenia. Evidence and materials obtained through torture were totally excluded from criminal cases. Currently, more than 52 per cent of inmates in penitentiary institutions were in pretrial detention. Audio and video recording in police stations were mandatory for every case.

Armenia had advanced legislation regarding asylum seekers and victims of trafficking. International law had almost been copied into the criminal legislation, particularly article 31 of the Geneva Convention on the status of refugees. A small limitation had been imposed in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which related to the 15 days of applying for asylum for three groups of cases: unlawful entry to the country, if the person was being criminally prosecuted, and for those who had been apprehended. Under this rule, 14 cases of asylum had been rejected, five approved and five suspended, according to the data for 2022.

The Human Rights Defender was ensured access to all penitentiary records. Most of the recommendations from the Human Rights Defender’s Office were taken into account when completing renovations and works in the penitentiary institutions. Currently, the Human Rights Defender could not initiate court cases but could provide briefs to the Constitutional Court. New legislation on discrimination was being developed which stipulated that the Human Rights Defender could recommend cases to court when it came to discrimination. Currently, Armenia was not discussing the possibility of implementing article 22.

The National Human Rights Action Plan provided for the relevant chapters for each individual who should receive training on torture prevention. Currently the Ministry of Justice was in the process of developing a single human rights training programme for staff at the penitentiary institutions. There were two key educational complexes which provided training to judges, the judiciary and police officers. Last year the Human Rights Defender’s Office provided training to all police detention facilities.

In 2024, a mother and childcare penitentiary institution was constructed. Currently, the sanitation facilities were adapted to meet the needs of pregnant women and children up to three years old. Food preparation for penitentiary institutions had been outsourced to a private company, which ensured dietary diversity. More than 95 per cent of the inmates were satisfied with the food provided.

From 2019, persons deprived of their liberty under the age of 19 were included in the general education programme to ensure the continuity of education. Surveys had been conducted among inmates to identify those without secondary education, and efforts had been made to provide them with secondary education or vocational training. Last year, an innovative workshop was opened for inmates, allowing them to make furnishings for other institutions, providing them with the necessary equipment and materials.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said under Armenian law, amnesty did not apply to individuals who had committed the crime of torture. The term public official had been broadened to include any person who had the authority to act on behalf of the State. As such, all individuals operating in this capacity could be held criminally liable. All institutions which could be engaged in cases of torture were covered within the criminal legislation for criminal liability. Armenia had ratified the Rome Statute and remained fully committed to aligning its national legislation with the requirements of the International Criminal Court. Trainings for public officials, judges and members of the Investigative Committee were planned with international officials in this regard.

There had been a notable increase in detention motions of around 20 per cent in 2024, compared to previous years. The percentage of granted motions of detention had generally decreased. Legislative amendments and relevant trainings had been organised for the probation service, and they were being monitored. A thematic report on the practical challenges of alternative measures was developed in 2022 to see where the law could be improved. Work was being done to ensure that pro bono lawyers would be exempt from taxes.

The fight against corruption remained a top priority for the Armenian Government, and a strategy had been underway for the past three years. Individuals could submit anonymous reports via an online platform, directly accessible to the General Prosecutor’s Office, under the whistleblowers law.

The penitentiary service guaranteed equal treatment, and the Criminal Code ensured equality for all convicted individuals. Any case of attempted suicide or self-harm was reported to investigative authorities. Mental health and suicide risk monitoring tools had been implemented in all penitentiary institutions since 2022. In every case of suicide, attempted suicide, or self-harm, a comprehensive analysis of the situation was undertaken. Since July 2024, a risk and needs assessment tool was introduced which supported the rehabilitation services.

In 2023, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was established as a civilian oversight body over the police. It was responsible for areas of public safety, security and disaster risk management, and was driven by the objective of introducing human rights-based approaches in policing and public services. The large-scale use of video surveillance in police operations ensured the accountability of the police. Under the new Criminal Procedure Code, the police were no longer authorised to conduct interrogations of persons accused of committing a crime. This responsibility had been transferred to the independent Investigative Committee. Patrol police wore body cameras all the time, acknowledged by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture as an important tool for the prevention of torture. Work was underway to provide the same equipment to community police.

In 2024, operations of nine out of 33 police facilities were discontinued, with an additional two terminated in 2025. Modernization and renovation works were planned for the remaining facilities to ensure compliance with international standards. In 2024, joint trainings on documenting and reporting torture were organised for police officers and medical professionals, with the support of the Council of Europe. Trainings based on the provisions of the Convention and the Istanbul Protocol were being developed and were expected to be scheduled this year.

Over the past 10 years, there had been several police officers dismissed due to exhibiting excessive use of force against journalists during demonstrations. To ensure the independence of medical professionals from the police, since 2022, medical examinations in police facilities were conducted exclusively by the doctors of ambulance services.

In 2024, the law on the police guard was adopted, which provided for the establishment of a new specialised police service with clear criteria for proportional use of force. This law and the relevant bylaws aimed to create the correct modus operandi for Armenian police officers, particularly in the context of mass demonstrations.

In 2024, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in cooperation with the migration and citizenship service, had conducted trainings for penitentiary officials on cases of asylum. The Bar Association of Armenia provided the penitentiary service with leaflets and posters related to granting asylum, available in eight languages. They contained information about the grounds for granting asylum and rights of asylum seekers.

The criminal case of March 2008 remained ongoing, and the Committee had already been provided with information pertaining to this case. Taking into account the volume and complexity of the case, investigative teams had been set up to ensure the comprehensive investigation. Around 7,000 witnesses had been questioned over the course of the investigation. More than 1,000 expert examinations were carried out, and more than 1,000 inspections, confiscations, searches and other investigative and judicial actions were performed. As part of the ongoing forensic examination being conducted, firearms were being submitted for study and subjected to comparative ballistic analysis. More information would be provided in writing.

Concerning the case of Mr. Virabyan, the advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights was applied in the decision of the Court of Cassation. The Convention took precedence over domestic legislation, and this was applied in the case of Mr. Virabyan. In 2024-2025, three convictions and one acquitting verdict were rendered under the Criminal Code for police officials found guilty of the crime of torture, with the individuals sentenced to imprisonment.

Targeted interventions had been adopted in care home settings to prevent cases of abuse. A draft order addressing the submission of anonymous reports in care institutions was now in process. This would allow standardised information to be provided to beneficiaries about the clearly defined mechanism for submitting complaints.

In April 2024, a procedure was adopted for referring child victims of violence, and where necessary placing the child within a family, institution or support centre. Corporal punishment was prohibited in all settings, including the family setting. Children who had experienced violence were entitled to State support, and entities responsible for childcare were required to promptly report any instances of violence. In recent years, Armenia had made progress in expanding the welfare and rights of the child.

To strengthen the independence of medical personnel in penitentiary institutions, the penitentiary centre was founded independently in 2018. Medical examinations were carried out by a doctor, totally excluding the employees of penitentiary institutions and out of earshot of penitentiary staff. A preliminary examination of mental health and suicide risks was ensured. In cases of suspected torture and ill-treatment, all injuries were noted and documented.

The medical examinations of persons deprived of their liberty were organised in a timely manner, without undue delay. Upon entering the penitentiary institution, persons deprived of their liberty underwent a mental health screening within 24 hours, and psychologists and mental health staff were stationed at the centres. The law on reproductive health applied to everyone, including those in prisons. Tests were performed for all sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. If a positive result was received, medical staff would begin medical treatment.

The Ministry of Justice had implemented a wide range of awareness raising activities in all penitentiary institutions, including posters on combatting torture. Video material regarding the prohibition of torture was also disseminated publicly. Armenia was actively working to combat hate speech and had classified hate speech through technology as a distinct type of cybercrime. A comprehensive range of awareness raising activities to address the manifestations of hate speech had been implemented, including a month-long campaign in high traffic areas, such as the metro, highlighting the negative impacts of hate speech. Armenia was currently drafting a new strategy on combatting discrimination and hate speech, to address the possible issues which may arise during the investigation processes. This had stemmed from the human rights agenda of the Government.

Questions by Committee Experts

PETER KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, commended Armenia for the efforts made to comply with the Convention. What happened if a person was not able to comply with the 15 days of deadline in relation to asylum applications? Had any of the cases against police officers led to criminal proceedings? Regarding the March 2008 investigation, 17 years was a long time, and the Committee looked forward to receiving the written information from the delegation. Was it true that cases by the Investigative Committee were slow? Would the State take measures to make investigations more prompt? Was the committee fully independent from the police? Had Armenia undertaken any investigations into allegations of mistreatment of Azerbaijani soldiers and civilians on Armenian soil? The national mechanism to follow up on concluding observations was a positive step. Could more information on this mechanism be provided?

ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was concerned about the lack of community services for psychiatric patients, and the lack of a mechanism for the deinstitutionalisation of children in social care homes. Could more information about the reform of social care homes in Armenia be provided? Which institution had oversight on psychiatric facilities? Did civil society organizations have access to monitoring visits? Did any complaints mechanisms exist in these institutions? How many complaints had been received and what had been the results? Could updated statistics be provided in cases where victims had been offered redress and compensation? How did the Government plan to ensure that compensation was accessible to victims, even in cases where perpetrators remained unidentified?

There were ongoing efforts by the Government to monitor violent incidents and deaths within the armed forces, but there was a significant lack of public oversight over the military units. The practice of non-statutory relationships among servicemen, which often resulted in bullying, violence and sexual abuse, persisted. What specific measures were being taken by the Armenian military management to address and prevent violence in the army? What steps was the Government taking to increase public oversight of the military? How did the Government plan to ensure that the military was held accountable for offences such as injuries and murders? What actions were being taken to provide psychological support for soldiers to prevent suicide and address mental health issues?

Armenia had made notable progress in addressing gender-based and domestic violence. The adoption of the 2017 law on violence in the family was a significant step forward. However, there were concerns about the high number of incidents of gender-based violence, particularly during the pandemic. It was important to ensure access to free health care services to victims and survivors, and shelters must be accessible to victims with disabilities. What measures were in place to address the gaps in the reporting system, particularly in rural and remote areas? What shelters were available for victims and survivors? How did Armenia intend to integrate the provisions of the Istanbul Convention into its domestic legislation? When would it be ratified?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the independence and impartiality of the Investigative Committee was ensured through a special unit, tasked with investigating torture and abuse by officials. Regarding allegations of torture of Azerbaijanis soldiers, comprehensive investigations had been undertaken relating to videos received. However, the investigations remained ongoing. There were currently no prisoners of Azerbaijani origins in Armenia’s custody; all individuals had been returned. In stark contrast, Azerbaijan continued to hold Armenian nationals in its custody, in contrast to its national obligations. The closure of the Red Cross office in Azerbaijan had created a protection gap. International human rights organizations had reported grave human rights violations by Azerbaijani forces.

Armenia was establishing a mechanism for reporting and follow-up on human rights recommendations. The national mechanism would be a permanent structure which involved members of judicial and legislative branches of the Government.

If the applicant for asylum missed the 15-day deadline, the person was treated not as an asylum seeker, but as a foreigner. The law had been developed with assistance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organization colleagues.

There were 67 disciplinary proceedings launched against police officers last year, with 27 resulting in finding no violations. As a result of one of the proceedings, three police officers were found guilty and dismissed from service.

The fight against gender-based violence was an ongoing process carried out with State and non-State parties and civil society actors. State financed shelter services were available which provided victims with safe accommodation and psychosocial and legal support. Over the past five years, the number of individuals receiving these services had increased, due to the increase in social workers. The law on the protection of domestic violence had undergone many changes, with almost 11 provisions amended. The provision concerning the reconciliation procedure had been annulled, and now stipulated for medical services to be provided to victims of violence based on the type of violence they had experienced.

Armenia had conducted awareness raising campaigns which focused on educating stakeholders on the importance of the Istanbul Convention as it pertained to gender-based violence. Recent legal reforms strengthened protections for victims, improved measures for reporting violence, and improved training for police and those dealing with victims. A new vulnerability assessment system was being launched, which would help families overcome extreme poverty.

Since 2014, the number of children in institutional care had been reduced five-fold from more than 2,000 to less than 400. There were now three crisis centres providing round the clock care to children. There had been a sharp increase in foster care placements over the last five years.

Regarding the armed groups, there were several main actors within the human rights action plan, including suicide and self-harm prevention groups, which operated within military units. Legal and human rights education efforts had also been strengthened, with training courses provided on torture and ill-treatment, targeting military personnel.

Closing Remarks

CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the excellent and informative dialogue. The multilateral system was in deep crisis at the political level and financially. However, despite all these restrictions, the Committee worked arduously, objectively and constructively to produce a positive impact on the lives of people in the States parties.

ANNA KARAPETYAN, Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia and head of the delegation, expressed sincere appreciation to the Committee for the excellent dialogue. The Committee’s comments and recommendations reinforced the shared responsibility held together for the prohibition of torture everywhere, under all circumstances. Armenia was proud of the progress made but recognised that the journey for a torture-free society was ongoing. Armenia remained committed to working towards this goal.

___________

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

CAT25.005E