On June 24, 2010 the Public Monitoring Group members submitted recurrent records on different types of shortcomings available at the DFs in three different marzes of RA. Below are presented facts from the above mentioned records, the RA Police comments regarding these facts, and the clarification given by the Monitoring Group.

• According to record 2245/25, at RA Police Vayots Dzor Vayk DF it was registered that S.V. was arrested on 27.01.2010 and on 30.01.2010 at 09²⁰–10³⁰ o'clock was transferred to the court for restraint. But the court decision was to free S.V. Despite this, S.V. was again transferred to the DF and kept there until 19⁰⁰ o'clock.

The same attitude was shown towards P.B. who had been arrested on 04.02.2010.  On 06.02.2010 at 12⁰⁰ -13⁰⁰ o'clock P.B. was transferred to the court for restraint. But the court decision was to free P.B. Again without any basis, P.B. was transferred by the inspection officer to the DF and was kept there until 07.02.2010.

RA Police comments:

On 30.01.2010 petition was submitted to the court to choose arrest as restraint. The petition was declined by the court. Afterwards, on 30.01.2010 based on note 7/38-106 by the inspection officer S.V. was freed at 12⁵⁰ o'clock (and not at 19⁰⁰ o'clock). Despite the warnings of the Police Vayk Department DF staff the Monitoring Group members mentioned 19⁰⁰ o'clock as the hour of setting free for unknown reasons.

P.B. was arrested on 04.02.2010 at 22⁰⁰ o'clock. On 06.02.2010 petition was submitted to the court to choose detention as restraint towards P.B. The petition was declined by the court. But the court decision was submitted from Police Vayk Department to the DF on 07.02.2010 as note No 7/58-37. Based on this note P.B. was set free on 07.02.2010 at 14⁰⁰ 'clock.

Factually, P.B. was kept at Police Vayk Department DF from 04.02.2010 to 07.02.2010, which corresponded to the demands of RA Criminal Code.

 Clarification:

Regarding the issue mentioned above in the RA Police comments that S.V. was set free at 12⁵⁰ o'clock (and not at 19⁰⁰ o'clock), we state that after the Monitoring Group members had recorded the fact, the record was signed by the DF head, and in the record it was written 19⁰⁰ o'clock.  

In the RA Police comments it was mentioned that P.B. had been kept according to RA Criminal Code demands, but it was not mentioned according to which paragraph of RA Criminal Code authorization was given to keep a former arrestee in detention for another day.

It should be added that for the above mentioned two cases Article 16 of RA Constitution had been violated, as well as Paragraphs 1 and 2 of part one of Article 132 of RA Criminal Code, and Article 5 of the European Constitution of Human Rights according to which “1. Every person has the right to freedom and personal indefeasibility. No one should be deprived of freedom otherwise than … stated in the law.

• According to record 2245/27,  the Public Monitoring Group members presented that at RA Police Tavoush Marz Department Dilijan DF the following fact had been recorded: on 18.03.2010 S.B. was arrested as "under detection" at "Zvartnots" airport, taken to Dilijan Police Department, and afterwards was transferred to DF. But again, the petition by the investigation officer to choose detainment as restraint was submitted to the court on 23.03.2010. The court affirmed the petition. The most important data on the above mentioned is that the restraint was used 5 days later only.  

RA Police comments:

S.B. was arrested at "Zvartnots" airport on 18.03.2010 and taken to Police Dilijan Department. On 23.03.2010 G. Hakopyan, head of Dilijan Department Prevention Office submitted petition to Tavoush Marz Court of Jurisdiction to restate the restraint chosen towards S.B. On 23 March, 2010 Tavoush Marz Court of Jurisdiction restated detention as restraint towards S.B. On the same day S.B. was transferred to Vanadzor DF.

S.B. was arrested on 18.03.2010, but because March 20 and 21 were Saturday and Sunday respectively, the decision on detainment was obtained on 23.03.2010. On 19 March the investigating body was busy with preparing materials on S.B. Total; S.B. was kept at Dilijan DF for 111 hours or 4,5 days, whereas S.B. could have been kept for 6 days. On that day ambulance was called for 5 times. There were relevant records on this account at the DF registers.

Clarification:

It is incomprehensible that keeping S.B. for 111 hours at the DF is normal and according to RA legislation demands, according to which 72 hours is considered as normal and that restraint should be used for 72 hours and not for 111 hours. Another fact should be paid attention to: the RA Police comments read that March 20 and 21 had been Saturday and Sunday respectively, and the restraint had been submitted and chosen on 23 March. By this the Police had tried to distract the attention of the public. For information it should be mentioned that all the RA courts have 24 hour on-duty service to prevent obstacles. No reasoning why 22 March had not been mentioned. All these allowed us to think that all these actions had been taken on purpose, because the above mentioned person had to be set free by RA Police Tavush Departmnt Head on 21 March according to paragraph 188 of the Chapter 18 of decree No 574-N of the RA Government dated 05.03.2008, "because of non-relevant measures implementation by the investigating officer". In the meantime, Article 16 of RA Constitution, paragraph 2 of the Article 129 of the RA Criminal Code, and Article 5 of the European Constitution of Human Rights had been violated.

• According to record 2245/26, the Public Monitoring Group members presented that none of the shortcomings available at RA Police Ararat Marz Department had been eliminated since 2009. The Monitoring Group mentioned about this in the annual report, where the RA Police comments read that all the shortcomings had been eliminated. But on 13.06.2010 the Monitoring Group registered that:

ü      the DF had 3 cups and 6 spoons for 11 persons;

ü      Of the medicaments mentioned in the medicament list 5 titles of medicaments were available only;

ü      There was no bed linen at the DF; In addition, there was a detainee at the moment of visitation at the DF who had not been provided with bed linen;

ü      No articles of hygiene were available at the DF;

ü      Cell number one, as previously, was outside of the administrative territory, and it was completely furnished and under use;

ü      The canteen was not furnished and, as previously, was in unsanitary condition;

ü      Nothing to add on the condition in the toilet, as it had become worse;

ü      The socket of the investigation cell was repaired, instead it was covered by A4 paper sheet;

ü      As a result of humidity the DF building was eroded and no measures were taken;

ü      The records were not kept as due.

It should be added that the list of shortcomings available could be continued.

RA Police comments:

The DF consists of 5 cells, 4 of which are in the regime zone, and the cell for administrative detention is outside the regime zone. The latter does not function after the administrative detention has been taken out. It should be mentioned that during the 6 months of the year 2010 total 62 persons were kept at the DF. The capacities of the 4 cells (for two persons each) are enough to detain the above mentioned number of persons. Therefore, the statement by the Monitoring Group that the cell outside the regime zone is being used has no grounds and it does not correspond to reality.

No shortcomings had been registered at the Police Masis Department DF by the members of the "Committee for Prevention of Tortures" (CPT), when in observation mission to Armenia from 10 to 20 May 2010. The RA Police had submitted their comments according to their own investigations and CPT assessment positive results. Nevertheless, by record No 2245/26 dated 24.06.2010 the Monitoring Group named the RA Police comments as "not corresponding to reality," thus violating the norms of ethics. To get reassured in the impartiality of the Monitoring Group a committee was formed and the Masis DF was investigated once more on 6 July, 2010. The results of investigation were as follows:

ü      At the canteen there was an electric food heater, 16 spoons, 8 cups, 12 plates;

ü      16 sets of clean bed linen were available;

ü      The toilet was in hygienic condition, toilet paper and soap were available;

ü      The socket of the investigation cell was functioning and it was  not covered with paper;

ü      25 titles of medicaments with not expired dates were available at the DF;

ü      The walls of Masis DF building were eroded in some places because of high humidity, but that was not a reason to close the DF.

Thus, the rest 4 members of the Monitoring Group added their signatures under the investigation done by the other 4 members of the Group that did not correspond to reality. And the whole Group accused the Police in publishing information that did not correspond to reality. This is beyond the right boundaries of the Group, as the order No 1-N dated 14.01.2005 given by the Head of RA Police does not contain such rights.

 

The fact that the Group Members give the records to the on-duty policeman to sign under them does not speak about the high morals and impartiality of the Group members, because the on-duty policeman is not authorized to sign them. Factually, the Monitoring Group did not show high morals and impartiality as in the case of Masis DF (where instead of 12⁵⁰ o'clock 19⁰⁰ o'clock had been mentioned). Thus, the Group had violated the order No-1 dated 14.01.2005 given by the Head of RA Police, and the norms of ethics. In the same time the members had exceeded their rights by accusing the RA Police in publication of comments that did not correspond to reality.

Clarification: 

On the above mentioned it should be said that the Monitoring Group had made a record and the on-duty policeman had been made familiar with all the mentioned shortcomings and had signed under the record. Moreover, photos regarding the mentioned shortcomings had been available. As to the administrative cell, it was completely furnished: there was a drawer for personal belongings, a bed and bed settings.

The Monitoring Group is concerned with the comments given by RA Police regarding the shortcomings recorded in those three marzes. The Police put under suspicion the morals and impartiality of the Monitoring Group members instead of taking relevant measures to prevent further violations of the type and to punish the persons that took such actions.

The above mentioned statement will be presented to RA Police after the joining of the NGOs.