As we had previously informed, the rapid
response groups of the Human Rights Defender have conducted rapid response
visits since early morning to 8 Police departments where more the 151 persons
have been apprehended.
As a result of the visits, a number of
procedural violations by the police officers while apprehending citizens were
observed. The analysis of most registered violations prove their continuity.
Below we present the main violations:
1. The
vicious and inadmissible practice of apprehending citizens without presenting
any demands, without explaining to them the reasons and grounds of apprehending,
without informing citizens about their minimum rights, and without Police
officers presenting themselves, is widespread.
In the framework of the rapid response
visits, cases were registered where citizens who were in the police division
for more than an hour were not aware of the reasons and grounds of their apprehending.
Cases were also registered where regardless of the end of activities within the
framework of administrative procedure against the apprehended, they were kept
in Police divisions, until the expiration of the 3 hours which is defined by
law.
In this regard, the Defender specifically
underlines that the above-mentioned 3 hours is the maximum which the Police can
deprive a person of their liberty within the framework of administrative arrest,
at the same time, before the expiration of that period, the person must be
released immediately after the end of the procedural activities, regardless
whether the 3-hour period since their detention has expired or not.
The persistence of the above-mentioned
non-legal way of working is especially worrying in the presence of the
statements, appeals and letters that were addressed to the competent bodies by
the Human Rights Defender last week.
Within the framework of the conducted
visits, a case was registered where a citizen sustained a non-bleeding injury
when they were apprehended by the Police. Although the Police had notified the
ambulance service, the further diagnosis and treatment of the hand injury
sustained by the citizen should have been conducted at the expense of the
citizen according to the Police and the servicemen of the ambulance service.
We also consider that this approach cannot
be considered acceptable, since the injury was sustained when Police servicemen
were apprehending the citizen while using force.
In another case, during a car accident as
a result of Police officers ordering a citizen to drive their car, the Police,
according to the citizen, demanded from them to drive away without notifying
the insurance company and to conduct all the necessary activities to later
receive insurance compensation. Afterwards, they apprehended the citizen,
according to whom, while using disproportionate force, including stepping on
the throat of the citizen, while they were still in the car. According to the
citizen, one of the policemen made insulting remarks towards them.
Cases were registered in the Mashtots
division of the Police in Yerevan, where apprehended citizens were not released
even 30-40 minutes after the expiration of the 3-hour period envisaged for
administrative arrest. In this regard, the Defender states that 3-hour is the
maximum period of deprivation of liberty, after which the restriction of
liberty of persons is illegal and highly condemnable.
Another widespread issue, was the identification
of persons by electronic devices against their will. Such issues have been
registered in in the Arabkir and Erebuni Police divisions. In this regard, the
Defender underlines that in the event that a person, exercising their right to
remain silent, refuses to submit their personal data, including identification,
it is inadmissible for the Police to identify them through electronic devices
against their will.
To identify a person with electronic
devices against their will, making use of their lack of knowledge about such
devices or secretly without their knowledge, is especially unacceptable.
2. As
a result of the monitoring of the publications of mass media by the Office of
the Human Rights Defender, a number of issues and worrying cases have been
registered.
Firstly, the analysis of the video spread
by a number of media outlets shows the use of disproportionate force by 4-6
Police servicemen while apprehending a citizen, while another Police serviceman
hits the head of the citizen several times.
The Defender strongly condemns such
conduct, which is not conditioned by necessity, is not defined by the status of
a Police serviceman, and which violates the law.
On the other hand, it is commendable that
after a few hours from the mentioned incident, the Police published information
that an official investigation would be conducted against the Police
serviceman. Regardless, in connection of the incident mentioned by the
Defender, relevant letters will be addressed to competent bodies, to ensure that
such incidents do not occur again and to ensure culprits do not avoid
punishment.
The analysis of media also registered a
case where the person who presented themselves as the lawyer of apprehended
persons was also apprehended.
The use of disproportionate force
continued to be problematic in the practices of apprehending protesters by the
Police. At the same time, it is evident in some of the analyzed cases that the
participants of the assemblies insulted, torn the shoulder straps and insignia,
and conducted other provocative behavior against the Police serviceman ensuring
public order and security in the area.
Cases
were registered where Police servicemen were masked, including while they were
apprehending citizens. Meanwhile, there should NOT be masked or plainclothes
Police servicemen in areas where assemblies or other civil acts are taking
place.
Exceptional cases MUST have concrete
justifications and by the possibility of identifying Police servicemen. Police
serviceman should be in uniform, and their uniform must have clearly
identifiable information, mandatorily mentioning the first and last name. The
citizen must be able to identify the police serviceman who approached or
apprehended him.
3.The representative of the Office of the
Human Rights Defender witnessed the use of violence by the Head of the State
Protection Service against a professional journalist. The Human Rights Defender
considers such an act unacceptable and condemnable, especially when this act is
conducted by a person who is the Head of the Service and not a regular
serviceman.
A public servant conducting their service
in public spaces should exclude all forms of violence, especially against
journalists conducting their professional activities.
At the site of the mentioned incident, the
representative of the Office of the Human Rights Defender received explanations
from the journalist and the Head of the State Protection Service.
4. The calls for violence and
manifestations of intolerance on social media and mass media continue to remain
problematic.
The analysis of media by the institution
of the Defender has revealed several condemnable incidents of polarization of
public opinion.
For example, during the assembly on May 1,
certain mass media outlets disseminated videos of the burning of photos of
various officials; the organizers of the assembly do not condemn these
acts.
The mass media in its turn did not take
measures to prevent the dissemination of the mentioned materials, as well as to
remove the hateful comments spread under those publications.
At the same time, the calls for the
exclusion and condemnation of violence by certain members of the national
Assembly, and their calls for tolerance for citizens not participating in the
rallies is commendable.
Cases were registered where influential
people have tried in one way or another to justify or welcome the use of
disproportionate force by the police or other public servants which is very
worrying and condemnable, taking into consideration their large public
audience, as well as the existing tense public atmosphere.
5. In conclusion, in relation to the
above-mentioned incidents, the Human Rights Defender condemns the conducts of
Police servicemen which are not provided for by law. At the same time, The
Defender registers that a productive communication has been established between
the Office of the Defender and the Police, to respond operatively to the
mentioned incidents and to prevent further violations.
The leadership of the Police has
demonstrated readiness and an approach to solve the raised issues quickly. The
problems registered by the institution of the Defender and detailed proposals
for their solution will be sent to the Police of Armenia.
At the same time, the Defender calls on
the organizers of assemblies and protests and public actors to refrain from all
forms of violence, from insulting and demonstrating disrespectful attitude
against each other and the Police, and to respect journalists who are
conducting their professional activities.
Հայերեն
