0 8000 12 11

The human rights defenders believe that the Armenian Special Investigation Service fails to conduct an adequate, comprehensive and impartial investigation into the illegal actions by the police against citizens. On May 4, 2015, the Media Center hosted a press conference on the quality of the SIS operation and covered the cases of police violence against citizens (Ani Boshyan, Alexander Tsveryanov, Robert Muradyan, Andranik Mkhitaryan) and a case on corruption (Armen Shamiryan). The press conference showed by certain cases that even if the SIS might initiate criminal cases against police officers on the police violence and take some actions, it later decrees to stop the criminal prosecution and discontinue the case. Whereas in cases the police officers were declared not guilty, criminal cases should be initiated against the citizens for false report. As for the 3 cases above, the human rights defenders believe that the SIS failed to carry out an impartial investigation as in all the cases it mostly considered the testimonies by the police credible and those by the citizens baseless. Under a surprising pattern, 3 different SIS investigators show a similar behavior in 3 different cases, i.e. they consider the testimonies provided by different police officers credible and those by the victims of torture as baseless. As advocate Tigran Safaryan mentioned, “/…/ no police officer in any country, including Armenia, has ever admitted his violence against citizens.” However, in many of legal and democratic states, the courts, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, made numerous rulings detecting the police violence against citizens. The Conference also covered the legislation regulating the activities of the SIS, which has a negative impact on its efficiency, particularly the direct dependence of the SIS on the executive authority and the inadequate supervision by the National Assembly. The Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor has already referred at round-table discussions to the legal issues in the operation of the RA SIS, RA NSS and the RA Prosecutor’s Office and their solution. It is also noteworthy that the testimonies of a citizen and those transferred by an investigator contain some contradictions, and therefore, the human rights defendants suggest that while challenging such rulings the relevant party and the court have relevant authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to hold relevant questionings and examine the evidence, which will all provide for a complete procedural control over the actions of the agency responsible for the preliminary investigation. During the press conference, it was also noted that at the preliminary investigation stage of one of the cases above, the police officers provided counteracting testimonies, however, the SIS ignored it and shortly after suspended the proceedings. To sum up the assessments and analyzes provided at the press conference, it follows that the SIS and its regulatory legislation should undergo major reforms to provide us with the legal guarantees necessary for an effective investigation. At the end of the press conference, the human rights defenders urged the SIS investigators to consider its steps seriously and act within the law, since they would have to answer not only the questions of the RA citizens at the Strasbourg Court, but also those of the CՕE Anti-Torture Committee