In relation to the conduct of Police servicemen regarding the
guaranteeing of the rights to freedom of expression through a car protest and
assemblies:
Today, the monitoring conducted by the Human Rights Defender recorded
cases of disproportionate use of force by Police servicemen during the
apprehending of people. The practice of making a clear legal demand by the
Police remains problematic.
A case was registered where Police servicemen insulted and made
degrading comments directed at a participant of the car protest. The Human
Rights Defender emphasizes yet again that according to the disciplinary code of
the Police, the police officer is obliged to show restraint, and display a
civilized, polite and respectful attitude towards the citizens.
Both today and during the previous week, as a result of the visits
conducted by the rapid response groups of the Defender and the received
alarming-calls, several cases were registered where the vehicles of the persons
participating in the car protests were impounded and were not later returned to
the protesters.
Moreover, in relation to around sixty vehicles, it has been several
days that they have not been returned to their owners, and the grounds why they
are not returned and are still kept in the specially protected area are not
provided to the citizens.
In this context, the Defender registers that that taking vehicles to a
specially protected area, and not returning them to their rightful owners
cannot be considered legal in the absence of an initiated criminal proceedings
and a relevant judicial act within the framework of the mentioned proceedings,
providing for the confiscation of the vehicle.
At the same time, the substantiations provided orally by Police
servicemen that those vehicles were taken to a specially protected area, and
were confiscated on suspicion of any crime without initiating criminal
proceedings and within the framework of preparing materials for initiating a
criminal case, are groundless and unlawful.
Such acts are not provided for by law, and are disproportionate
interference with the right to property of persons; those vehicles should be
immediately returned to their owners. In this context, the Human Rights
Defender will address letters to the relevant state bodies, to receive
explanations and to demand the cessation of the disprorpotiante interference
with the right of property of persons.
In the Shengavit Police station, a case where a lawyer was banned from
entering was registered; the issue was resolved after around 20 minutes after
the intervention of the Office of the Human Rights Defender. At the same Police
station, the rapid response groups of the Defender recorded a case where although the relevant person was apprehended
at around 9:30, the examination of the "Register of Persons brought to the
Police station" revealed that the registered time of the apprehending was
10:00.
Moreover, although the time of their release was registered to be
13:00, the person was still in the Shengavit Police station at around 13:40.
The Police clarified that they were transferring the person to another Police station,
because they had prepared materials in relation to another incident involving
the person.
It was also recorded that Police servicemen were trying to deprive the
lawyer of the same person of his liberty; the ground for the deprivation of the
liberty was a video recording that the lawyer had made. As a result of the
intervention of the rapid response groups of the Defender, the lawyer was
released from the Police station.
It was also recorded in the same Police station that the details of 4
persons who did not introduce themselves to Police servicemen were not
registered in the "Register of Persons brought to the Police station"
The Defender warns again that it is inadmissible to hold a person
illegally for more than the established period on the grounds of administrative
arrest, at the same time trying to conceal it by falsifying the time of the
apprehending in the register.
It is also inadmissible to prevent a lawyer from entering the Police station
for the purpose of visiting a client, while it is a gross violation of the law
to attempt to restrict a lawyer from leaving the Police station for any reason.
In relation to the mentioned case, the Defender will address a letter
to the relevant bodies to hold the involved persons in this case responsible,
and follow thoroughly the investigation of the case.
In relation to ECtHR rights regarding assemblies:
The law developed by the European Court of Human Rights clearly states
that non-violent acts during peaceful assembly, such as the temporary closure
of roads, including by physical barriers or by blocking it in any way, are
protected by the right to freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the
Convention
The Court has stressed that any gathering in a public place could
cause some inconvenience to the daily life of others, including disruption of
traffic, and that in the event of the absence of violence by the protesters,
state bodies should tolerate peaceful assemblies to ensure that the freedom of
assemblies is not deprived of its content.
At the same time, over the years, the Court has developed an approach,
according to which, the premeditated creation of obstacles to the daily life
and lawful activities of others that significantly exceed the level of
obstacles to the normal exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly,
may be considered a "reprehensible act", in which case the
implemented penalties or punishments might be justified.
Simultaneously, the Court has reaffirmed in a number of cases that the
freedom to participate in a peaceful assembly is so important, that a person
cannot be subjected to penalties if they do not commit an illegal act. The
Court has also stressed that the organizers and participants of assemblies,
following the requirements of legality, must respect the rules of democracy, in
which they also have a role to play.
Therefore, appropriate and necessary measures should be taken by the
Police for the realization of the right to hold a car protest, including,
directing the movement of the protest, warning of possible obstacles to traffic
to ensure the normal procession of the car protest on one side, and to ensure
that the inconveniences caused to other people are reasonably minimized,
ensuring that the situation does not lead to a constant and widespread blockade.
The participants of the assembly expressing their opinion through the
car protest are obliged to comply with the lawful demands of the Police, which,
among other things, may be aimed at ensuring normal road traffic. The Police is
also obliged to provide sufficient time to the participants of the car protest
to comply with their demands.
Հայերեն
