Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis June 01, 2009 <\/p>\n
Caucasus\u00b4 tiny state is the realm of Obduracy, Odium, and Oppression; the racist Anti-Turkish, Anti-Azeri, Anti-Turkmen and Anti-Islamic tyranny of Armenia illegally occupies part of Azerbaijan\u00b4s territory, counting on the Anti-Islamic stratagems of Russia.<\/p>\n
Supported by donations of the villainous, rancorous, revengeful and hateful Armenian Diaspora, the tyranny of Yerevan is one of the world\u00b4s cruelest and most inhuman regimes and has actually a most preoccupying record of Human Rights\u00b4 violations perpetrated not only against the ethnic minorities but also against religious groups who reject the Fascist version of the Westernized Armenian Christianity.<\/p>\n
Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the entire Islamic World must set up a long term policy to force Russia to either abandon its evil Caucasus ally or be lethally hit by all means in its heart, Moscow. The demolition of the Armenian tyranny is a prerequisite for the prevalence of peace in Caucasus region without any blackmailing, rogue attitude or reference to the ghosts of the past.<\/p>\n
I herewith republish the Amnesty International Report that sheds light on the persecution of the Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses in Armenia; quite unfortunately, they are not the only to be persecuted there.<\/p>\n
Amnesty International report 2009 – Armenia<\/p>\n
Portrait<\/p>\n
Head of state: Serge Sargsian replaced Robert Kocharian in April<\/p>\n
Head of government: Tigran Sargsian (replaced Serge Sargsian in April)<\/p>\n
Death penalty: abolitionist for all crimes<\/p>\n
Population: 3 million<\/p>\n
Life expectancy: 71.7 years<\/p>\n
Under-5 mortality (m\/f): 36\/31 per 1,000<\/p>\n
Adult literacy: 99.4 per cent<\/p>\n
Amnesty International report 2009 – Armenia<\/p>\n
Mass protests over disputed presidential elections in February led to a 20-day state of emergency and a crackdown on civil and political rights evident throughout the year. Freedoms of assembly and expression were heavily restricted. Opposition and human rights activists were subjected to violent acts by unknown persons. Conscientious objectors continued to be imprisoned. Structures and resources to combat violence against women remained inadequate.<\/p>\n
Freedom of assembly<\/p>\n
Excessive use of force<\/p>\n
On 1 March, police used force in the capital Yerevan to break up protests that had been ongoing since the results were published of the 19 February presidential election. Serge Sargsian, incumbent Prime Minister and close associate of outgoing President Robert Kocharian, had officially won. At least 10 people died, including two police officers, and over 350 were injured, including some 58 policemen. Police were reported as using truncheons, iron bars, tracer bullets, tear gas and conducted energy devices. The authorities declared a state of emergency on the same day.<\/p>\n
In June a parliamentary commission was established for three months to investigate the March events. In mid-October, the commission requested a two-month extension in order to incorporate the findings of a second fact-finding group.<\/p>\n
Arbitrary arrests and detentions<\/p>\n
Dozens of opposition members were arrested in the aftermath of the 1 March violence, including many high-ranking figures associated with Levon Ter-Petrosian, the main rival to Serge Sargsian, and members of the opposition Republic party. Some of those arrested were reportedly beaten or ill-treated in police custody. Many of those arrested were still in pre-trial detention at the end of the year. The Council of Europe repeatedly expressed concern at the excessive length of the official inquiry into the March events, and the continued imprisonment, in some cases without trial, of dozens of opposition supporters. The trial of seven of those detained started on 19 December.<\/p>\n
Legal, constitutional or institutional developments<\/p>\n
On 17 March the National Assembly approved amendments to the law on public assembly giving local authorities the power to ban public meetings. After the lifting of the state of emergency there were continued reports of extensive detentions and harassment by security officials of citizens gathering in public places in central Yerevan. Concerns expressed by the OSCE and the Council of Europe led to the Armenian authorities agreeing on 22 April to the repeal or revision of the March amendments. Nonetheless, the Yerevan municipal authorities continued to ban some demonstrations by the opposition.<\/p>\n
Freedom of expression<\/p>\n
Journalists and media outlets that covered opposition activities were harassed. The vague wording of restrictions on freedom of expression gave the authorities broad powers to restrict opposition or independent media. Several opposition media outlets reported having websites closed, and newspaper editions were refused permission for publication. The Yerevan Press Club, the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, Internews, the Asparez Press Club of Giumri and the Femida public organization expressed concern that further delays to the government issuing broadcast licences would result in reduced media diversity.<\/p>\n
In August Haykakan Zhamanak (Armenian Times) journalist Lusineh Barseghian was beaten by unknown men. Later that month, Hratch Melkumian, acting head of the Armenian Service of Radio Free Europe\/Radio Liberty, was beaten in central Yerevan. There was reportedly no progress in the investigations into these assaults by the end of the year.<\/p>\n
The independent Giumri-based television station Gala TV faced consistent harassment after it screened campaigning speeches by Levon Ter-Petrosian. On 19 March a fine of almost 27 million drams (about US$87,700) was imposed on Gala TV for alleged tax evasion; the sum was reportedly paid off by contributions from private donations. In April Gala TV was ordered to vacate its premises in Giumri\u00b4s television tower, forcing it to temporarily cease broadcasting.<\/p>\n
Impunity<\/p>\n
A number of assaults on opposition and human rights activists were not investigated promptly or thoroughly. On 21 May, Mikael Danielian, a prominent human rights activist and director of the Armenian Helsinki Association, a human rights NGO, was shot at point-blank range with a pneumatic gun (a gun firing compressed air), reportedly by a former leader of a political party. Mikael Danielian was not seriously wounded. On 28 May Arsen Kharatian, a leader of the Armenian Democratic Youth Movement, was assaulted in Yerevan by unknown men. He was hospitalized with severe head injuries. On 25 June Narek Hovakimian, a member of the Hima youth movement and the opposition Alternative coalition, was assaulted in Yerevan by two unknown men. No one had been charged for these assaults by the end of the year.<\/p>\n
Discrimination – Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses<\/p>\n
Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses continued to face imprisonment because of their beliefs. As of 1 September, 77 young men were in prison for refusing on grounds of conscience to perform military service. The authorities still failed to introduce a genuinely civilian alternative service, in spite of previous commitments, with military supervision continuing over the alternative civilian service.<\/p>\n
Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses reported further problems on release. The authorities refused to grant them certification of full service, without which important documents such as passports and internal residence permits were harder to obtain.<\/p>\n
There were also reports of physical attacks on Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses, including allegedly by supporters of the country\u00b4s dominant religious group. Investigation of these assaults was said to be slow or non-existent.<\/p>\n
Violence against women and girls<\/p>\n
Over a quarter of women in Armenia were said to have been hit by a family member and about two-thirds were said to have experienced psychological abuse, yet the authorities failed to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women. Adequate structures and resources to combat violence against women were lacking. Shelters previously operated by NGOs had closed due to lack of funding early in the year; one was able to reopen in September. A draft law on domestic violence, promoted by the Women\u00b4s Rights Centre NGO, was made available for public discussion.<\/p>\n
Amnesty International visits<\/p>\n
Amnesty International delegates visited Armenia in February, July and November.<\/p>\n
Addendum<\/p>\n
Document – Armenia: Fear of the freedom of conscience and religion: violations of the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses<\/p>\n
Armenia<\/p>\n
Fear of the freedom of conscience and religion: violations of the rights of Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses<\/p>\n
1. Introduction<\/p>\n
Amnesty International is concerned that Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses continue to be victims of human rights violations in Armenia, despite the country\u00b4s obligations under international human rights law to respect and protect the right to freedom of conscience and religion. Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses in Armenia also face violations of the right to liberty and security of the person, the right not to be discriminated against and the right to legal remedy. This report lays out Amnesty International\u00b4s concerns relating to Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses in Armenia, and ends with a series of concrete recommendations to the Armenian authorities to ensure the protection of their rights.<\/p>\n
Amnesty International is concerned by the continuing practice of imprisoning conscientious objectors, the vast majority of whom are Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses, in defiance of Armenia\u00b4s obligations under international human rights standards.<\/p>\n
Rather than providing a genuinely civilian alternative to military service, an obligation undertaken by Armenia upon accession to the Council of Europe in 2001, the current legislative framework, implementation and legal enforcement of the alternative service are characterized by measures suggesting a pattern of deterrence aimed at discouraging conscientious objection. There is considerable evidence pointing to military oversight and control of the alternative service introduced in 2004, making it incompatible with the beliefs and convictions of Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses (and others whose beliefs and convictions prevent them from taking up arms). Numbers of Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses imprisoned are on the increase, due to more severe sentencing, and those who serve their terms continue to face bureaucratic obstacles to the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights upon their release. All are imprisoned in contravention of Armenia\u00b4s obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and all are considered by Amnesty International to be prisoners of conscience. As such all of them should be released immediately and unconditionally.<\/p>\n
Increased reports of physical attacks on Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses and reportedly slow or non-existent investigation of these assaults represent further concerns for Amnesty International. These acts of violence are directed at Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses as members of a particular group, and therefore constitute a form of discrimination as well as crimes in their own right. The Armenian authorities have an obligation to exercise due diligence in protecting Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses against such attacks, including by the thorough, independent and impartial investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution of perpetrators of physical assault. Amnesty International is concerned that the reported failure to punish such crimes may be contributing to a climate of impunity for the physical assault of Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses, and, accordingly, impunity for discrimination against them.<\/p>\n
A number of sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. An Amnesty International delegate visited Armenia in March 2007 and met with the Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses organization in the capital Yerevan. Meetings were also conducted in London with the European Association of Jehovah\u00b4s Christian Witnesses, whose reports and other documents were also used. On 31 August Amnesty International also wrote to several agencies within the Armenian government to elicit information and responses to the organization\u00b4s concerns.<\/p>\n
Letters were sent to the Minister of Defence, the Republic of Armenia Police, the Prosecutor General\u00b4s Office, the Ombudsman\u00b4s Office, the Department for National Minorities and Religious Issues and the Division for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Replies were received from the Republic of Armenia Police, the Prosecutor General\u00b4s Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the information received in this correspondence was considered in the final drafting of this report. Finally a wide range of internet-based news services were also consulted.<\/p>\n
2. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion<\/p>\n
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is guaranteed by the Armenian Constitution and a wide array of instruments of international human rights law, to which Armenia is a State Party. Article 26 of the Armenian Constitution specifies that “[E]veryone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and further stipulates that “[T]he exercise of this right may be restricted only by law in the interests of the public security, health, morality or the protection of rights and freedoms of others”. Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which enshrines the right to freedom of religion, declares that “[E]veryone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and the freedom “either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching”. Armenia is also a State Party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 9 of which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.<\/p>\n
The principle of non-discrimination in the enjoyment of rights is enshrined in Article 2(1) and 2(2) of the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 2(1) of the ICCPR obliges Armenia to “ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origins, property, birth or other status.” Article 14 of the ECHR likewise guarantees the enjoyment of rights and freedoms without discrimination of any kind.<\/p>\n
The ICCPR (Article 2(3)) and ECHR (Article 13) further enshrine the right to legal remedy in case of violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in these documents. Specifically, Article 2(3) of the ICCPR obliges Armenia to ensure that any person whose rights have been violated shall have an effective remedy, “notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”.<\/p>\n
The right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, enshrined in Article 18 of the ICCPR, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 9 of the ECHR. At the regional level the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have both urged governments to actively provide for the fulfilment of this right through the creation of a genuinely civilian alternative to military service. They have further stipulated that this alternative must not be of a length which could be considered punitive in relation to military service, and recommended that individuals may be allowed to register as conscientious objectors at any time before or during their military service.<\/p>\n
3. Background<\/p>\n
Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses have been active in Armenia since 1975. Armenia\u00b4s independence from the Soviet Union dramatically changed the context for their activities in the country, and they first requested legal registration as a religious organization in 1995. A Jehovah\u00b4s Witness lawyer in Armenia, Lyova Margarian, told Amnesty International that the organization was refused registration 15 times.1 At the same time, aspects of the organization\u00b4s activities in Armenia became the source of friction with representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church.2 There were also reports of discrimination against members of the organization (and other religious minorities).3 The Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses were finally granted registration on 8 October 2004; according to the European Association of Jehovah\u00b4s Christian Witnesses, there are now thought to be some 9,000 Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses in Armenia.4<\/p>\n
Although the organization has been able to import religious literature since that time, it reported to Amnesty International that it regularly faces problems renting rooms or buildings for religious meetings. Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses in the Armenian capital Yerevan reported several instances where contracts for the rental of premises for the holding of religious meetings had been reneged upon without the reimbursement of funds paid in the form of deposits, thereby incurring financial loss for the organization. In several instances it was state authorities, such as the Ministry of Culture and Youth Affairs, which had intervened to prohibit the fulfilment of contracts.<\/p>\n
The Armenian Apostolic Church is the leading religious denomination in the country. Although as noted above the Armenian Constitution provides for the right to freedom of conscience, the Constitution as amended by referendum in 2005 also recognizes “the exclusive historical mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as a national church, in the spiritual life, development of the national culture and preservation of the national identity of the people of Armenia”. Although Soviet rule diminished the salience of actual religious practice among the Armenian population, a strong link was nonetheless maintained between an Armenian ethnic identity and the Armenian Apostolic Church.5 Whether practicing believers or not, some 90 per cent of the population of Armenia belong formally to the Armenian Apostolic Church. The population of Armenia consists of 98 per cent ethnic Armenians, accounting for a strong correlation between the population and at least nominal membership of the Armenian Apostolic Church.<\/p>\n
Perceived losses endured by the Armenian Apostolic Church during the period of Soviet rule and the opening up of Armenian society to the activities of other religious denominations have provided a backdrop for the legislation of a number of rights for the Armenian Apostolic Church. Although the \u00b4Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations\u00b4, adopted in 1991, provides for the separation of church and state, it also grants the Armenian Apostolic Church official status as the national church. Following a period of negotiations beginning in the year 2000, on 14 March 2007 an agreement or concordat was signed codifying the status and rights of the Armenian Apostolic Church.6 When this agreement was signed, human rights activists expressed concern that it effectively entrenched discrimination against other religious denominations denied the same rights and privileges as the Armenian Apostolic Church.7 These concerns were rejected by the director of the Department for National Minorities and Religious Affairs of the Armenian Government, Hranush Kharatyan.<\/p>\n
Although Amnesty International wrote to Hranush Kharatyan in August 2007 to voice some of the concerns addressed in this report, the organization has to date unfortunately not received a response.<\/p>\n
The human rights concerns documented in this report have therefore taken place against a background of the legalization and registration of the Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses and other religious groups in Armenia, concerns expressed by representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church about the impact of new religious denominations on the Armenian Apostolic faith and new legislation codifying the rights of the Armenian Apostolic Church.<\/p>\n
4. Compulsory military service in Armenia<\/p>\n
Compulsory military service in Armenia dates from the Soviet era and is mandated by the Constitution for all young men between the ages of 18 and 27. Procedures for the draft closely resemble those enacted under Soviet rule, and those completing their military service are issued with a certificate of military service (sometimes referred to by its Russian term voenni bilet). Possession of a certificate of military service is necessary in order to apply for a wide range of documents, including passports and visas, and is essential to enact a number of basic civil rights such as the rights to marry, to apply for higher education within the state education system and to apply for public sector employment.<\/p>\n
Since Armenian independence in 1991 the unresolved nature of the conflict between Armenians and Azeris in Nagorny Karabakh has strengthened public perceptions of the need for a strong military in Armenia.8 Following military victory in Nagorny Karabakh the army is more respected by public opinion than other institutions.9 In recent years demands for a strong military have been bolstered by a sense of strategic vulnerability in the context of high military expenditures in Azerbaijan and regular statements by Azerbaijani politicians regarding the possibility of the use of force to resolve the conflict. Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses in Yerevan told Amnesty International that they believed the context of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict militated against the creation of a civilian alternative service, as the authorities fear a \u00b4stampede\u00b4 of conscientious objectors that would weaken Armenian military capacity. These factors provide an unfavourable backdrop to the exercise of the right to conscientious objection.10<\/p>\n
5. Alternative civilian service in Armenia: still under military control<\/p>\n
When Armenia acceded to the Council of Europe in 2001 it committed itself to the introduction of a genuinely civilian alternative service of non-punitive length for those whose beliefs do not allow them to perform military service. In July 2004 a Law on Alternative Service was introduced in order to fulfil this commitment. The Deputy Prosecutor General informed Amnesty International that the \u00b4Law on Alternative Service\u00b4 offers citizens of Armenia objecting to compulsory military service on conscientious grounds the opportunity to perform “an alternative civilian service”.11 However, since its introduction the extent to which the alternative civilian service is genuinely civilian, and therefore fulfils Armenia\u00b4s obligations as a Council of Europe member state and its wider obligations under international human rights law, has been disputed.<\/p>\n
According to information gathered by Amnesty International, in both its legislative framework and implementation the alternative civilian service remains under the supervision and control of the military and so does not constitute a genuinely civilian alternative to military service. Although this has been denied by some Armenian officials, the alternative civilian service continues to be under the overall supervision of the Ministry of Defence, thereby nullifying its ostensibly civilian character.12 The fact of military supervision has been confirmed by Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses who opted to perform the alternative civilian service. Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses told Amnesty International that members of their organization performing the alternative service were, for example, reportedly not allowed to leave their place of work without the permission of the nearest military authority or police. They were reportedly required to wear uniforms provided by the military, could be transferred to reserve units, and were required to keep an official pay-book\/identity card marked \u00b4RA Armed Forces\u00b4. Those who fell ill during the service were sent to military hospitals for treatment. Allegedly, part of their daily programme was determined by staff in the Ministry of Defence, and involved physical exercise typical of a military, rather than civilian, regime. Furthermore, it was reportedly the Military Prosecutor\u00b4s Office that was the authority dealing with alleged breaches of discipline.<\/p>\n
Military oversight of the alternative civilian service is further confirmed by the issuing of Order No.142 on 20 December 2004 by then Deputy Minister of Defence Michael Harutunian. This order mandated weekly military supervision of those performing the alternative civilian service. Monthly written reports were also to be submitted to the Chief of General Staff. Finally, Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses refusing to perform or abandoning the alternative service on grounds of conscientious objection have been prosecuted as if they were military personnel under Articles 327 and 362 of the Armenian Criminal Code, which deal with draft evasion and desertion respectively.<\/p>\n
As noted above, it is stipulated by the Council of Europe that alternative civilian services must not be punitive in length. Those performing military service in Armenia must serve for two years, whereas those performing the alternative civilian service must serve three and a half years. Although there is no simple standard for determining when length of service becomes punitive, Amnesty International believes that the fact that those performing the alternative service must serve for 75 per cent longer than those performing military service is suggestive of an intent to punish, by imposing a significantly longer alternative service requirement.<\/p>\n
A further problem with the legislative framework of the alternative civilian service is that the \u00b4Law on Alternative Service\u00b4 does not allow for applications for conscientious objection to be made by serving conscripts. Applications to object to military service on conscientious grounds must be made prior to the beginning of the months of March or September preceding the bi-annual drafts. Serving professional soldiers are omitted entirely from legal provisions regulating conscientious objection.<\/p>\n
Although a number of amendments were introduced to the \u00b4Law on Alternative Service\u00b4 in 2005 and 2006, the above deficiencies have been acknowledged by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Paragraph 6.7 of PACE Resolution 1532, adopted on 23 January 2007, noted that the PACE was “disappointed to note that the current law, as amended in 2005 and subsequently in June 2006, still does not offer conscientious objectors any guarantee of “genuine alternative service of a clearly civilian nature, which should be neither deterrent nor punitive in character”, as provided for by Council of Europe standards.”13 The Resolution further expressed concern regarding the imprisonment of conscientious objectors.<\/p>\n
Amnesty International welcomes the acquittal in November 2006 of 19 men, all Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses, who began the alternative service in December 2004 but later abandoned it and after their conviction and imprisonment filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) against their imprisonment (Khachatryan and 18 Others v. Armenia).14 These individuals have not received compensation and Amnesty International urges the Armenian authorities to review their applications for compensation commensurate with the distress imposed by wrongful imprisonment.<\/p>\n
However, Amnesty International remains seriously concerned by the continuing imprisonment of increasing numbers of conscientious objectors. As of 26 September 2007 there were 82 Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses imprisoned in Armenia (73 tried and convicted, nine charged and in pre-trial detention). This number represented a new record and the continuation of a trend of increasing numbers of conscientious objectors in prison, a trend fuelled by lengthened sentences (see below) and greater reluctance to release conscientious objectors on parole. According to information supplied to Amnesty International by the Deputy Prosecutor General, a total of 92 Jehovah\u00b4s Witnesses were prosecuted under Article 327 of the Armenian Criminal Code between January and September 2007.<\/p>\n