Inconsistent Behavior and Inaction by Ministry of Justice Results in Concealing a Crime
12:35, December 14, 2015 | News, Own news | Right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Right to liberty and security | Detention Facilities
As reported previously, upon relevant alert, the Group of Public Observers Conducting Public Monitoring of Penitentiary Institutions and Bodies of the RA Ministry of Justice had found out that RA MoJ ‘Vanadzor’ penitentiary convict K. S. suffered pressure by a penitentiary officer who threatened to “fabricate charges” against him. The convict also mentioned other types of pressure by the penitentiary officer and insisted that they were caused by his ambitions for promotion.
The Public Observation Group filed an application to the RA Ministry of Justice to transfer convict K. S. for safety reasons to another penitentiary facilities. The only action the Ministry took in this regard was transferring the penitentiary officer who exerted pressure to another penitentiary. Thus, the Ministry considered it enough to resolve the issue, but of course, this was not a real resolution. As a result, the convict had to withdraw his complaint (one might assume that he did so under pressure by the penitentiary administration).
It should be added that HCA Vanadzor had previously filed a crime report on this case to the RA SIS; however, the latter decreed to reject initiation of criminal proceedings due to lack of corpus delicti.
Sensing an intention to conceal the crime, on October 12, 2015, HCA Vanadzor filed an appeal with the RA Prosecutor General requiring that he annulled the decree above on rejecting initiation of criminal proceedings.
In its previous article on the case reporting initiation of criminal proceedings on abuse of power by a penitentiary officer, HCA Vanadzor expressed a hope for a fair investigation, so that convict K. S. never again had to renounce the protection of his rights.
However, that was not the case; as expected, throughout the criminal proceedings, convict K. S. continued to give evasive testimony by even denying his words about long-term pressure and threats by the penitentiary officer. If the reasonable concerns received due attention and the convict was transferred to another penitentiary facilities, he would not have to provide evasive testimony and renounce the protection of his rights in an atmosphere of fear created by the administration of the penitentiary facilities.
The inconsistent behavior and inaction of the Ministry of Justice not only results in the violation of the convict’s rights but also fails to provide a favorable environment for the actions to restore such rights and ensure a full and thorough investigation into the case. This leads to concealing the crime.