CPT _2010_ 82 - EN - Report Armenia 2010 _2_ - The Government ...

- 18 -Despite this medical evidence, the SIS considered that the injury in question had beensustained in the course of the events of 1 March 2008 and that there was no reason to initiatecriminal proceedings. To reach that conclusion, it relied heavily on police reports, in particular astatement dated 6 March 2008 according to which Mr Elazyan indicated during examination byhealth-care staff at the Detention Facility of Yerevan City Police Department that the injuryobserved on the right eyebrow had been sustained before his arrival at the police station; thisstatement was signed by two police officers, the police feldsher who carried out the examinationand Mr Elazyan himself. Such a statement clearly suggests that police officers were present duringthe medical examination of Mr Elazyan, which calls into question the reliability of the statementmade by the person concerned. 23It also emerged from the examination of the case-file that, according to Mr Elazyan, thealleged ill-treatment had taken place on the premises of the SIS, in the presence and even with theinvolvement of SIS staff. Since the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment was conducted by theSIS, the person responsible for the investigation cannot be seen as independent from those possiblyimplicated in the events.In short, the delegation’s examination of this case revealed shortcomings in the manner inwhich the preliminary investigation was conducted, in particular: failure to give due weight toforensic medical findings consistent with allegations of ill-treatment and failure to observe the basicrequirement of independence. The CPT recommends that this investigation be re-opened.24. In the report on its 2008 visit, the CPT recommended that the investigations into the eventsof 1 March 2008 be conducted in accordance with the criteria of an effective investigation. 24However, according to senior police officials met at the outset of the 2010 visit, the SISinvestigations had relied on the results obtained by the police internal security service. Two juniorrankand two middle-rank police officers were sentenced to imprisonment (on account of abuse ofofficial authority), but none of them served prison sentences as a result of a general amnesty (whichconcerned first-time offenders over a period of 10 months in 2008). 25 The Committee would liketo receive the remarks of the Armenian authorities on this subject.25. More generally, the CPT’s delegation gained the impression that the SIS had faced and wasstill facing a lack of confidence in its oversight of the activities of law enforcement agencies. Morespecifically, the detained persons interviewed during the 2010 visit who alleged police ill-treatmentindicated that they did not wish to make an official complaint for fear of serious repercussions onthe ongoing criminal investigations against them.26. In the light of the above, the CPT recommends that increased emphasis be placed on thestructural independence of the SIS and the existence of transparent procedures in order toenhance public confidence. Further, direct, confidential, access to the SIS for persons allegingill-treatment should be ensured.232425See also paragraph 35 as regards police feldshers.See paragraph 21 of CPT/Inf (2010) 7.See, in this connection, footnote 11 of the present report and the CPT’s findings described in paragraphs 12and 13 of CPT/Inf (2010) 7.