Use of Disproportionate Force by Police Reported During ‘VETO’ Movement Rally - Ani Samsonyan

On April 7, 2021, various videos were published online regarding a protest organized by participants of the ‘VETO’ public-political movement in front of the Government building, where instances of police using disproportionate force were apparent. This was directed not only against female participants of the movement but also against journalists fulfilling their professional duties at that time, stated Ani Samsonyan, a member of the National Assembly from the ‘Bright Armenia’ faction, on her Facebook page this month.

“Thus, in a video posted by ‘Yerevan.Today’, it can be seen how disproportionate force is applied by a police officer against a journalist. Another video shared by ‘Tert.am’ shows political figure Vazgen Manukyan's wife, Varduhi Ishkhanian, being forcefully detained by police. In another report from the same site, police are again seen using violent and disproportionate force against the female participants of the ‘VETO’ public-political movement. A video published by ‘News.am’ captures the police again utilizing disproportionate force during the detention of participants in the protest,” she wrote.

According to Article 29 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Police, it follows that a police officer may use physical force, special means, and firearms as an exceptional measure, but only to the extent necessary to carry out their duties when there are no other means to ensure those duties. It is noted that while the police are allowed to apply physical force or special means, it must be proportional to the pursued objective and the specific situation.

Based on the above, I have appealed to the Chief of Police of the Republic of Armenia with the following inquiries for examination:

1. Were the actions of police during the protest on April 7, 2021, proportionate to the situation, and did they not constitute an abuse of the powers reserved by Article 29 of the Law on Police?
2. Do their actions not contain the characteristics of the crime stipulated in part 2 of Article 164 of the RA Criminal Code, which refers to obstructing the legitimate professional activities of a journalist or forcing them to refuse to disseminate information, carried out by an official using their position?
3. Do their actions not comprise the characteristics of the offense defined in part 1 of Article 163 of the RA Criminal Code, which deals with obstructing the conduct of lawful assemblies?
4. Were the grounds for detention presented to those detained, and were their rights communicated in that status?” she inquired.