Rights of Participants in April Protests Grossly Violated, Ombudsman Reports

The rights of participants in the April 2018 protests were grossly violated, with disproportionate administrative measures and unjustified arrests being employed against them. This assessment is contained in the annual report published by Human Rights Defender Arman Tatoyan. The report states:

“During the democratic developments that took place in our country in April-May, Armenian citizens had the opportunity to make fundamental changes directly affecting each of us through the free exercise of their will. The peaceful nature of the protests significantly reduced the risk of large-scale clashes and violence during the acts of civil disobedience. All of this is documented in the Human Rights Defender's 2018 annual report.”

The work of the Human Rights Defender during those days recorded violations in the actions of the Police:

1. There were gross violations of the minimum rights of individuals deprived of their liberty in administrative offense proceedings (including access to a lawyer and doctor, right to guidance, etc.). There are serious issues within the legislative framework governing administrative detention and apprehension that need fundamental review.
2. Individuals who were apprehended or arrested were held in police departments for longer than the legally prescribed time, which is illegal. This was sometimes justified by insufficient organizational and human resources of the Police; however, this can never be an excuse and must be excluded.
3. The administrative-legal measures applied against participants in peaceful gatherings, including administrative detentions and apprehensions, were excessively disproportionate. In reality, these measures should have been aimed at excluding any unjustified interference with the freedom of peaceful gatherings, rather than simply isolating people from the gathering.
4. In the context of administrative offenses involving minors held in police departments, their rights were grossly violated, including the absence of special procedures regarding their treatment and deprivation of liberty.
5. In numerous cases, administrative detention was applied simply to ensure a person's involvement in a criminal case and consequently extend their stay in the police department. This is a completely unacceptable approach and must be excluded in any manifestation.

Thus, the mechanism effectively operated as ‘administrative detention–presenting a person in witness status to the investigative body–criminal procedural detention’ to circumvent criminal procedural requirements. Further details are available in the annual report on the topic.