Opposition demonstration, Liberty Square, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2004

Via Martuni of Bust, RFE/RL reports that in its first-ever ruling on Armenia, the European Court of Human Rights yesterday ruled against the arrest of an opposition activist at an anti-government demonstration in Yerevan’s Liberty Square four years ago. One can only hope that this will set a precedent for the rule of law here as the May parliamentary elections approach. As arbitary arrest and detention is just one way the authorities attempt to keep a lid on political activity, it’s an important decision.

The plaintiff, Armen Mkrtchian, was detained by the police along with several other members of the radical opposition Hanrapetutyun (Republic) party after actively participating in an unsanctioned rally in Yerevan on May 14, 2002. He was released after being fined a largely symbolic 500 drams ($1.5) under Armenia’s Soviet-era Administrative Code.

Mkrtchian took his case to the Strasbourg-based court in November 2002, arguing that the Armenian authorities can not sanction anyone for attending street protests in the absence of a law regulating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of assembly.

The Strasbourg court cited a lack of `domestic provision which clearly stated whether the former USSR laws remained or did not remain in force on the territory of Armenia.’ Its did not impose any penalties on the Armenian state, saying that the `finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.’

Mkrtchian, who did not seek any material compensation, said he is fully satisfied with the ruling. `The main purpose of my application was to show our judges and rulers that they must honor their obligations to the Council of Europe,’ he told RFE/RL. `They will now be more vigilant. I have kind of cleared the way for similar legal challenges against illegalities committed in our country.’

Interestingly, apart from Ara’s blog, there is no other mention on what still remains the largely Diaspora-driven English-language Armenian Blogosphere. That’s not surprising perhaps, because many sites are reluctant to speak out against the lack of democracy and the almost total disregard for the rule of law in Armenia. Instead, blogs set up by Armenian citizens working in civil society carry more on the ruling. Local activist Bekaisa, for example, posts the full text of the court’s decision.

The applicant, Armen Mkrtchyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). At the material time he was a member of the “Republic” Party.

On 14 May 2002 he took part in a demonstration on Freedom Square organised by his party and six other political parties.

Following the demonstration the applicant called on participants to hold a procession up Baghramyan Avenue towards the Parliament building. Later on that evening he was arrested for organising an unlawful procession and having violated the prescribed rules for holding demonstrations and street processions.

On 15 May 2002 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found that he had committed an offence under Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) and fined him the equivalent of one euro. The decision was final and not subject to appeal.

On 24 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Civil Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that he had a constitutional right to contest the decision of the District Court before a higher court. He further argued that the interference with his right to freedom of assembly was not prescribed by law as there was no law which prescribed the rules that the applicant had allegedly violated. He expressly requested the Court of Appeal to name any such law if it existed. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision and the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation informed the applicant that the domestic legislation did not provide for a right to lodge a cassation appeal against the decisions which the applicant sought to contest.

On 28 April 2004 the Armenian Parliament adopted a law regulating the procedure for holding assemblies, rallies, street processions and demonstrations.

Meanwhile, another local activist and analyst, Kornelj, posts the text of a Human Rights Watch report on Armenia. Once again, there is much to be concerned about, and it never ceases to amaze me how Armenians in the Diaspora can dream of living in the “homeland” when the rights of its citizens are trampled upon on an almost daily basis, and when political and other forms of corruption are at unprecedented levels in the republic’s short history as an independent State.

The Armenian government has done little to address serious human rights violations. Threats to media freedom in Armenia continued in 2006, as more journalists faced harassment and attacks, and broadcast media lack pluralism and remain largely pro-government. Torture and ill-treatment remain serious problems in places of detention and the military. Human rights defenders did not report harassment in 2006, but the ombudsperson was dismissed in January apparently for criticizing the government, a move that raises questions about the government’s commitment to the independence of that institution.

In November 2005 a national referendum vote approved constitutional amendments that aimed to introduce stronger checks and balances among government branches. Council of Europe legal experts approved the draft amendments, but Armenia’s political opposition contested the legitimacy of the Armenian authorities and called for boycotting the referendum. Council of Europe observers expressed concern about the integrity of the vote.

[…]

On May 31, 2006, Armenia ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). In April the government established a group to monitor certain detention facilities (temporary holding cells and pre-trial detention cells), although its independence is questionable as the majority of members are police appointees. NGOs report that torture and ill-treatment in police custody, prisons, psychiatric institutions, and the military remain widespread.

[…]

Over the past two years, the government forced hundreds of central Yerevan residents to vacate their homes to allow for construction of a business district. Many felt that government compensation was well below the market value of their properties. In April the Constitutional Court ruled that the government’s assertion of eminent domain was unconstitutional. On August 11, 2006, President Robert Kocharian announced that the government will refund the income tax deducted from the compensation paid to those evicted, but also suggested that no additional compensation would be paid, despite the Constitutional Court decision.

On February 15 authorities released Vahe Grigorian, a lawyer for many of the evictees, who had been held in pre-trial detention for over four months on charges of fraud and forgery. Grigorian denies the accusations and believes the charges were in retaliation for his advocacy in the eviction case. The charges against him have not been dropped.

[…]

In its country strategy for Armenia approved in February 2006, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development maintained its engagement with Armenia, but noted that the political will to implement commitments to democracy, pluralism, and market economics remains uncertain.

Hopefully, the ruling will now encourage more Armenians to stand up for their rights, and what I’d personally like to see is civil society groups put together a fact sheet for citizens so that when the elections are underway, everyone knows what they can do and what they can’t. What I’d like to see is citizens stand their ground even in the face of intimidation, violence and detention so that they can then appeal to the courts. This also extends to information for journalists, incidently.

In addition to the problem of the pro-government TV stations, including those co-owned by Diasporan “benefactor” Gerard Cafesjian, rarely reporting on illegalities during elections, there’s the need for all journalists to know their rights at polling stations and demonstrations, for example, when police still try to restrict their movement and reporting. This happened to me too many times last year, although I carried out about my business telling the policemen that they’d have to arrest me as there is no law that prevents me from taking photographs in a public space.

Of course, I’m fortunate in being a British citizen as locals have it worse. For example, during the 2003 presidential election I personally saw a TV film crew from A1 Plus get intimidated, harrassed and violently ejected from a polling station in Etchmiadzin by the entire Precinct Election Commission (PEC). Their crime? They filmed a ballot box very obviously stuffed with ballot papers. Unfortunately, as part of the OSCE-ODIHR observation team, my status prohibited me from intervening, and along with the Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy, had to watch on helplessly.

Incidently, I posted about the related issue of the Diaspora and its possible role in democratization in Armenia here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most recently, here. There’s almost certainly more mention of it elsewhere on this blog, but that should be enough to keep you going for the time being.