Tweet
OMBUDSMAN ON PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S ACTIVITIES
http://www.a1plus.am/en/social/2012/03/30/ombuds-prosecutor
03:18 pm | Today | Social
Armenian Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) has released another report,
this time assessing the activities of the Prosecutor General's Office
Though many law violations by investigation and preliminary
investigation bodies have been revealed and processed as a result
of prosecutorial control including cases relating to records on
crimes, their registration, record keeping and the process itself,
however, the complaints addressed to the Ombudsman evidence that there
were significant contradictions in the explanation materials given
to citizens, and in some cases the investigation and preliminary
investigation bodies have made decisions "on proceeding rejection
of criminal cases by the materials". Such kind of violations of the
rights and interests of citizens by the investigation and preliminary
investigation bodies mainly took place as a result of a non proper
control by the Prosecution over the investigation and preliminary
investigation, when disputable or illegal decisions have not been
eliminated.
And again as a result of non proper control over the investigation and
preliminary investigation there exist many cases when the investigation
and preliminary investigation bodies have violated the 10 days time
period - prescribed by Article 180 of the RA Criminal Procedural Code
- of consideration of reports on crimes. Actually, the problem is a
result of an unrealistic legislative regulation, about which evidences
the Prosecution's reply to the Ombudsman, where it is mentioned that
the prescribed by law 10 days time period is not usually sufficient
for revealing the grounds of criminal case proceedings.
In many cases, as a result of non sufficient control by the
Prosecutor's Office, the period prescribed by the Criminal Procedural
Code was not kept towards detainees in the RA Police Detention
Facilities (hereinafter - detention facilities).
Though the order of discussing complaints in the Prosecution is
regulated by N59 order "About approving the order of the prosecutor's
office of the Republic of Armenia" of the RA Prosecutor General, made
on 20.06.2008, and according to point 224 of the order it is forbidden
to send the application for discussion to a state or local government
body or an official, whose decision or activity (inactivity) is in
the process of appealing, nevertheless, in certain cases citizens,
complaining of an investigator's activities, guided by the Article 290
of the Criminal Procedural Code, applied to the Higher Prosecutor and
the latter in order to solve the further process of the application
submitted it to the investigator, whose actions are challenged. As a
result of such actions, citizens' right to appeal that is- the right
to effective legal protection was violated.
Though the legislative process of responding to possible cases of
violence and torture in places of detention or penitentiaries is
strictly regulated in the RA Prosecution system, however, according
to citizens the Prosecutor's Office not in all cases was informed or
effectively intervened.
The court and the legislative body did not sufficiently ensured the
parties' equality- the principle of competition- at the trial stage.
The results of monitoring carried out by human rights organizations
evidence that the prosecutor while implementing its activities at the
trial stage has advantages over the other party, which leads to an
inequality of the trial parties. In such cases the right to a fair
trial is violated.
A worrying fact is that the Prosecutor's Office, generally, while
solving the issue of precautionary measures, prefers submitting
detention request to the court, whereas detention should be observed
as an exclusive preventive measure and be applied in case when it
is impossible to ensure the accused proper behavior in the course of
proceedings by means of other preventive measures prescribed by the
RA Criminal Procedural Code. In practice "Personal guarantee" and
"Organization guarantee" preventive measures almost were not applied.
At the same time the most effective alternative preventive measures
are not prescribed by the RA Criminal Procedural Code.
The RA Prosecutor's Office, in the scope of its authorities, carries
out control over application of Article 190 ("Subordination of
Investigation") of the RA Criminal Procedural Code. The controlling
prosecutor should take measures to except the cases of violations of
subordination of investigations transferring those cases to appropriate
preliminary investigation bodies to be investigated accordingly. Some
local and international human rights organizations and experts
expressed their negative opinion on this function of Prosecutor's
Office, who think that subjective approaches should be minimized;
the approaches and standards, which are applied while deciding the
matter of subordination of investigation of criminal cases, should
be clearly defined.
Despite of some favorable amendments and more effective and transparent
implementation of works, however, there were complaints regarding
the RA Military Prosecutor's Office in the course of the year. In
particular, complaints of parents and relatives of military servicemen
-died or killed during military service in RA Armed Forces, related
to non comprehensive, non complete and non objective preliminary
investigation by the preliminary investigation body -in the result
of no proper control carried out by the RA Military Prosecutor's
Office. Such kind of complaints mainly referred to crimes committed
before 2011.
In the anti-corruption strategy program framework, prescribed by
the RA decision N1272, 08.10.2009 "About Establishing the Program
of Events of the RA Anti-corruption Strategy Implementation during
2009-2012", the RA General Prosecutor's Office took some measures in
the sphere of prevention of corruption in the respect of elimination
of gaps in legislative and law enforcement practices and also other
issues. Nevertheless, the main conditions promoting to the reduction of
corruption are social conditions, in the context of which legislative
settings regarding salaries of prosecutors should be reconsidered -
possibly increasing them and making independent from the executive
body's discretion.
The RA Prosecutor's Office ensured to a maximum degree transparency and
publicity of its activities, the evidence of which is presentation of
its daily activities on the website. According to published monitoring
results in 2011, conducted by "Freedom of Expression Committee" NGO,
the Prosecutor's web page was considered the most transparent one
in terms of accessibility of information. Besides, the RA General
Prosecutor's Office received a letter of thanks from "Freedom of
Information Center" NGO for promoting freedom and publicity of
information in Armenia.
http://www.a1plus.am/en/social/2012/03/30/ombuds-prosecutor
03:18 pm | Today | Social
Armenian Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) has released another report,
this time assessing the activities of the Prosecutor General's Office
Though many law violations by investigation and preliminary
investigation bodies have been revealed and processed as a result
of prosecutorial control including cases relating to records on
crimes, their registration, record keeping and the process itself,
however, the complaints addressed to the Ombudsman evidence that there
were significant contradictions in the explanation materials given
to citizens, and in some cases the investigation and preliminary
investigation bodies have made decisions "on proceeding rejection
of criminal cases by the materials". Such kind of violations of the
rights and interests of citizens by the investigation and preliminary
investigation bodies mainly took place as a result of a non proper
control by the Prosecution over the investigation and preliminary
investigation, when disputable or illegal decisions have not been
eliminated.
And again as a result of non proper control over the investigation and
preliminary investigation there exist many cases when the investigation
and preliminary investigation bodies have violated the 10 days time
period - prescribed by Article 180 of the RA Criminal Procedural Code
- of consideration of reports on crimes. Actually, the problem is a
result of an unrealistic legislative regulation, about which evidences
the Prosecution's reply to the Ombudsman, where it is mentioned that
the prescribed by law 10 days time period is not usually sufficient
for revealing the grounds of criminal case proceedings.
In many cases, as a result of non sufficient control by the
Prosecutor's Office, the period prescribed by the Criminal Procedural
Code was not kept towards detainees in the RA Police Detention
Facilities (hereinafter - detention facilities).
Though the order of discussing complaints in the Prosecution is
regulated by N59 order "About approving the order of the prosecutor's
office of the Republic of Armenia" of the RA Prosecutor General, made
on 20.06.2008, and according to point 224 of the order it is forbidden
to send the application for discussion to a state or local government
body or an official, whose decision or activity (inactivity) is in
the process of appealing, nevertheless, in certain cases citizens,
complaining of an investigator's activities, guided by the Article 290
of the Criminal Procedural Code, applied to the Higher Prosecutor and
the latter in order to solve the further process of the application
submitted it to the investigator, whose actions are challenged. As a
result of such actions, citizens' right to appeal that is- the right
to effective legal protection was violated.
Though the legislative process of responding to possible cases of
violence and torture in places of detention or penitentiaries is
strictly regulated in the RA Prosecution system, however, according
to citizens the Prosecutor's Office not in all cases was informed or
effectively intervened.
The court and the legislative body did not sufficiently ensured the
parties' equality- the principle of competition- at the trial stage.
The results of monitoring carried out by human rights organizations
evidence that the prosecutor while implementing its activities at the
trial stage has advantages over the other party, which leads to an
inequality of the trial parties. In such cases the right to a fair
trial is violated.
A worrying fact is that the Prosecutor's Office, generally, while
solving the issue of precautionary measures, prefers submitting
detention request to the court, whereas detention should be observed
as an exclusive preventive measure and be applied in case when it
is impossible to ensure the accused proper behavior in the course of
proceedings by means of other preventive measures prescribed by the
RA Criminal Procedural Code. In practice "Personal guarantee" and
"Organization guarantee" preventive measures almost were not applied.
At the same time the most effective alternative preventive measures
are not prescribed by the RA Criminal Procedural Code.
The RA Prosecutor's Office, in the scope of its authorities, carries
out control over application of Article 190 ("Subordination of
Investigation") of the RA Criminal Procedural Code. The controlling
prosecutor should take measures to except the cases of violations of
subordination of investigations transferring those cases to appropriate
preliminary investigation bodies to be investigated accordingly. Some
local and international human rights organizations and experts
expressed their negative opinion on this function of Prosecutor's
Office, who think that subjective approaches should be minimized;
the approaches and standards, which are applied while deciding the
matter of subordination of investigation of criminal cases, should
be clearly defined.
Despite of some favorable amendments and more effective and transparent
implementation of works, however, there were complaints regarding
the RA Military Prosecutor's Office in the course of the year. In
particular, complaints of parents and relatives of military servicemen
-died or killed during military service in RA Armed Forces, related
to non comprehensive, non complete and non objective preliminary
investigation by the preliminary investigation body -in the result
of no proper control carried out by the RA Military Prosecutor's
Office. Such kind of complaints mainly referred to crimes committed
before 2011.
In the anti-corruption strategy program framework, prescribed by
the RA decision N1272, 08.10.2009 "About Establishing the Program
of Events of the RA Anti-corruption Strategy Implementation during
2009-2012", the RA General Prosecutor's Office took some measures in
the sphere of prevention of corruption in the respect of elimination
of gaps in legislative and law enforcement practices and also other
issues. Nevertheless, the main conditions promoting to the reduction of
corruption are social conditions, in the context of which legislative
settings regarding salaries of prosecutors should be reconsidered -
possibly increasing them and making independent from the executive
body's discretion.
The RA Prosecutor's Office ensured to a maximum degree transparency and
publicity of its activities, the evidence of which is presentation of
its daily activities on the website. According to published monitoring
results in 2011, conducted by "Freedom of Expression Committee" NGO,
the Prosecutor's web page was considered the most transparent one
in terms of accessibility of information. Besides, the RA General
Prosecutor's Office received a letter of thanks from "Freedom of
Information Center" NGO for promoting freedom and publicity of
information in Armenia.