Seizure Placed on Assets and Monetary Means Exceeding the Accused's Value: Human Rights Defender

The Human Rights Defender has received complaints indicating that seizures are being placed on assets and monetary means that are several times higher than the value of the accused. This includes all properties, which is in violation of the law regarding damages related to actions not permitted by the Criminal Code, and the amounts for which property may be confiscated or legal costs incurred.

This practice is unacceptable, especially as investigations of the complaints filed with the Defender often reveal that the amount of damages resulting from actions not permitted by the Criminal Code is significantly smaller. Such actions unreasonably impose adverse consequences on defendants, making seizures of property or legal costs higher than necessary.

According to the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia, it is evident that this preventive procedural coercive measure is intended to secure through restrictions of property rights: 1. civil claims, 2. possible property confiscation, 3. judicial costs.

The Cassation Court of Armenia has stated that for the legitimate application of this measure, which limits a person's constitutional rights to control, possess, and use their owned property, the conducting authority must ensure a fair balance between the general interest and an individual’s right to freely utilize their property. Moreover, the Cassation Court justified its position by referring to the precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Defender emphasizes the necessity to strictly follow the positions established by the Cassation Court in order to ensure uniform practice and to utilize all possible measures to exclude the disproportionate seizure of the entire property belonging to the accused, cases of which continue to persist in practice. Accordingly, it can be argued that the application of seizures on property that is not subject to confiscation by law should be excluded within the framework of criminal proceedings, or the seizure should be imposed only to the extent that is subject to confiscation.