- 29 December, 2023
- Announcements
According to the information collected by the Union of Informed Citizens NGO from the Anti-Corruption Committee of the Republic of Armenia and the RA Prosecutor’s Office, only in exceptional cases do citizens report crimes. This is evidenced by the low numbers retrieved from the Ministry of Justice website www.azdararir.am.
Citizens avoid reporting crimes and misdemeanors unless they are personally affected, and sometimes even in the latter case they prefer not to deal with the law enforcement system. Often, citizens’ avoidance is due to previous problematic experiences and a number of other circumstances.
Based on consultations with representatives of law enforcement agencies and human rights defenders, Union of Informed Citizens tried to identify the main problems and possible solutions.
The causes of the problems are as follows:
Problem 1. Dealing with the law enforcement system usually involves unnecessary and unjustified hassle, even in the case of misdemeanors (administrative offenses).
Recommendation 1/1. Introduce an electronic system for crime reporting. The electronic system will allow to release citizens from the obligation to report to the police station. Also, carry out electronic registration of crimes, minimizing the non-registration practice.
Recommendation 1/2. In the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Fundamentals of Administrative Action and Administrative Procedure, define the nature of the offenses, the degree of severity, the role of the reporting person, what information they have about the incident, the potential role of this information in the disclosure of the incident, other possible sources of obtaining the specified information, in which case upon receiving a report on a crime or an administrative offense, it will not be required that the reporting person be interrogated or give a statement. In particular, if a person reports about disturbing their rest after the set time of the day or domestic violence or a possible incident of violence in a neighbor’s house, the statement or testimony given by that person apparently cannot have a decisive role in the proof process.
Recommendation 1/3․ Minimize instances when the property of citizens (including persons who have committed an alleged offense) is seized within the framework of criminal or administrative proceedings. If the seizure is necessary, the law shall define the exhaustive grounds and maximum terms for keeping the property under seizure (in the case of physical evidence, there are specific requirements, but in practice, the property is seized under the pretext of further investigation or expert examination, bur no judicial or administrative action is taken for a long time, and a person’s property rights remain unreasonably restricted).
Recommendation 1/4․ Liberalize the implementation of examinations, delegate them to private companies and privatize the National Bureau for Examinations of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, which will allow to bring private companies to the market, positively affecting the reduction of trial periods.
Recommendation 1/5․ Establish standard operating procedures (SOPs) to respond to the most frequently received alarms, particularly specifying in which cases and to what extent the police officers arriving at the crime scene should contact the caller by phone (and in which cases face-to-face). The procedure for approaching the scene of the most common misdemeanors and collecting information about the misdemeanor and its perpetrators should also be established.
Problem 2. Citizens are not aware of their rights when cooperating with the law enforcement system.
Recommendation 2/1․ Organize information campaigns to inform citizens about their rights.
Recommendation 2/2․ Oblige law enforcement authorities to inform citizens about their rights, both in writing and verbally, also using posters and leaflets on their rights, how reports are given and received, in police stations or in relevant departments of other law enforcement agencies.
Recommendation 2/3․ Make amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which the officials conducting an investigative or secret investigative action will be obliged to inform the citizens participating in the investigative or secret investigative action about the grounds for the action – the decisions of the investigator or the court, thus building the citizens’ trust in the lawfulness of joint actions with law enforcement officers.
Problem 3. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a number of gaps in terms of defining the rights of citizens.
Recommendation 3/1․ Initiate amendments in the legislation to reduce the burden of investigative bodies, the unnecessary paperwork in cases that pose a minor risk to the public, and even eliminate it. This refers, in particular, to theft of up to 20,000 AMD, disputes of a domestic nature, and other domestic crimes (except for domestic violence, pickpocketing, robbery or other cases that pose a high risk to the public), where a police officer, namely, a patrol service officer or a community police officer can give a situational, legal, fair solution to the incident on the spot: return of stolen property, reconciliation by placing obligations on the parties to the dispute to take action or refrain from taking action and avoiding unnecessary procedural and administrative paperwork. In such a case, not only will the burden of the law enforcement system be reduced, but also the authority of the relevant officer (general police) in the communities will increase. Potential corruption or other risks can be assessed and addressed through mandatory video recording, appeals and/or other means.
Recommendation 3/2․ Initiate amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in order to have a specific procedural status after giving a report on cases of public interest (including corruption and electoral crimes, misdemeanors committed by officials) by legal or natural persons if certain criteria are met. This will ensure equal rights for the victim and will provide an opportunity to appeal the actions and decisions of the bodies conducting the proceedings.
Recommendation 3/3․ Introduce the institution of holding a press conference and presenting a public report within the framework of criminal proceedings regarding cases of public interest.
Problem 4. The Police do not accept verbal reports of crime, forcing the citizens to submit them in writing (which is a violation of the law)
Recommendation 4/1․ Organize training sessions with relevant law enforcement officers to develop their skills to receive reports verbally and consider the possibility of all police officers having report forms and relevant technical capacities.
Recommendation 4/2․ Collection of feedback from citizens turning to the police. Sometime after (e.g. 10 days) a report is registered, officers from another police station can call the applicant, ask about the problems that arose during the reporting process and consideration of the application, what kind of attitude the police officer showed (friendly, professional, willing to help, etc.). The collected information should then be subject to statistical analysis and can also be used in deciding whether to reward or discipline a police officer.
Recommendation 4/3․ Change the performance evaluation criteria for law enforcement officers, avoiding criteria that motivate officers not to accept reports from citizens.
Problem 5. The mechanisms for protecting the personal data of citizens who reported crimes or misdemeanors are not regulated.
Recommendation 5/1․ Establish legal and technical mechanisms for the protection of personal data of a person reporting a crime or misdemeanor. Make relevant amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law on Fundamentals of Administrative Action and Administrative Procedure, the Code on Administrative Offenses, where the restrictions on the use of such data will be defined. Within the framework of criminal proceedings, it can be established that the identity of persons who are not parties to proceedings (alleged victim, legal representative of the victim, accused, legal representative of the accused) shall be subject to disclosure only in the case of the investigation of serious or particularly serious crimes, and in the case of misdemeanors, under no circumstances shall the personal data of those persons be transferred to a third party (except when it is not possible to prove the committing of misdemeanor by a specific person without the statement of the reporting person or the reported information). Make amendments to Article 204 of the Criminal Code, replacing the rather narrow and unregulated norm of “personal secret” with the concept of “personal data”. Personal data can be transferred only with the consent of the given person or in cases defined by law. The law can stipulate that the data may be transferred to public authorities for the purpose of detecting and preventing serious or particularly serious crimes.
Recommendation 5/2․ In the standard operating procedures (SOP) for responding to the most frequently received alarms, clearly state the cases when the police officer who arrives at the scene of the incident shall receive information about the reporting person from the Operational Management Center and when they can communicate this information to the alleged offender or any other person.
Problem 6. There are no mechanisms to encourage citizens who have provided essential information on crimes (corruption and not only) or provided voluntary assistance in the detection of crimes, while the existing mechanism regarding the damages suffered by witnesses does not actually work.
Recommendation 6/1․ Create appropriate legal mechanisms for the calculation and assessment of damages suffered by whistleblowers: transportation fees, lost benefits, damages incurred as a result of absence from work, as well as other possible damages provided for in the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia. In particular, in the Criminal Procedure Code of RA and the Law on Fundamentals of Administrative Action and Administrative Procedure, it can be established that the whistleblower (the reporting person) shall have the following property rights in in the event of being summoned by the prosecuting body: to receive compensation for travel expenses based on the scale set by the government, compensation for the resulting property damages and lost benefits (including a certain calculation of the babysitting fee for citizens with children, certain compensation based on the average income for self-employed citizens), as well as to define at the legislative level the right of a person to restore that right in case of a relevant violation and the right to be reimbursed for the property and non-property damages suffered as a result.
At the same time, it should be established that when testifying or participating in any judicial action, the citizen shall be given an application form for reimbursement of expenses at the end of that action, based on which the reimbursement shall made, regardless of the stages of proceedings.
Recommendation 6/2․ Establish in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia that when the prosecuting body actually seizes property that is not an object, tool or means of crime for the purpose of further investigation, then the person shall be given compensation for the damages suffered as a result of restriction of the right to use of the property. At the same time, the person shall be given the opportunity to submit a motion to the body conducting the proceedings requesting to provide the necessary funds for renting similar property.
In this regard, it is important that when the physical evidence is seized, the citizen is presented with an information sheet about the procedure and amount of compensation, and when the property is returned, a compensation form shall be provided, based on which the compensation will be made.
With this clause, an exception can be defined that if the property of a person accused within the framework of criminal proceedings has been seized, compensation can be provided only if the charges against the person have been dropped due to acquittal.
Recommendation 6/3․ Provide for mechanisms in the form of money, goods, discharge of obligations or other incentives for giving crime reports. Scales can be established by a Government decision for reporting corruption or other serious or particularly serious crimes of evidentiary value. Substantial monetary rewards can be established for citizens who assist in solving crimes by other means (for example, participating in undercover investigative actions).
Problem 7. Anti-legal, and in some cases, criminal subculture ideas are widespread in the law enforcement system. Not only is the disclosure of violations within the law enforcement system not encouraged, but even on the contrary, recording or voicing such violations is considered a reprehensible act.
Recommendation 7/1․ For the evaluation of the integrity of law enforcement officers, and for their further promotion or encouragement, add reporting about a fellow employee’s offense as a positive evaluation criterion, while failure to report it shall be defined as an in-service violation and a ground for disciplinary action.
Problem 8․ Citizens who have given a bribe to an official or taken an election bribe avoid reporting it to the law enforcement authorities, fearing criminal prosecution against them.
Recommendation 8/1․ Part 4 of Article 312 (bribery) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia of 2003 provided for an incentive norm: “A person who has paid a bribe shall be released from criminal liability if the bribe has been extorted, or if that person has voluntarily reported on giving a bribe to the law enforcement authorities”. The absence of the mentioned norm in the current Code cannot have any justification. We believe that it should be included in the current Criminal Code for two bodies of crime: Article 218 (receiving an election bribe) and Article 436 (giving a bribe) of the RA Criminal Code. Besides, it is proposed to provide for conditions for benefitting from the norm on incentives. In particular, persons giving bribes or receiving election bribes can benefit from the norm if no criminal proceedings have been initiated regarding the mentioned case or the law enforcement authorities were not aware of the crime.
Bodies of crime constituting giving or receiving a bribe have a high latency and their detection requires both the professionalism of law enforcement authorities and public support (in particular, the reporting of the crime by those involved in the crime). The existence of the norm on incentives will enable these persons not to be afraid of potential criminal prosecution. At the same time, high level of awareness and the fact of initiating proceedings by law enforcement authorities can act as a guarantee that will not allow the criminal to avoid criminal responsibility.
Even further, the existence of an incentivizing norm will have a negative impact on the atmosphere of trust between the bribe giver and the bribe taker because both sides will be engaged in committing a crime.
Problem 9․ Finding stolen goods is not a real priority for law enforcement officers, as a result of which citizens who have suffered material damage due to the crime prefer to come to an agreement with the criminal using the tools of the criminal subculture rather than contact law enforcement authorities.
Recommendation 9/1․ Include detection of theft and assisting in the recovery of material damage caused by crime in the criteria for encouraging and evaluating officers of law enforcement agencies (first of all, the Police and the Investigative Committee).
Problem 10. The Road Control app has many technical and other problems, public awareness is low. Those defects are never eliminated and lead to the incomplete operation of the system.
Recommendation 10/1. Carry out wider public awareness about the application.
Recommendation 10/2. Remove the artificial limitation on the list of types of violations, including all violations that can potentially be caught by a camera;
Recommendation 10/3. Eliminate the technical defects of the application, due to which the application often does not work,
Recommendation 10/4. Expand the app to enable alerting and reporting about road infrastructure.
Problem 11. A citizen can report an offense committed by a public servant, but if the case is not handled properly, the citizen will not be able to demand that the offender be punished.
Recommendation 11/1. We propose to provide under Article 3 of the RA Administrative Procedure Code that if a citizen’s alarm about an administrative violation has not been properly addressed, they can apply to the administrative court, regardless of whether or not their right has been violated. In other words, if this recommendation is accepted, the subject reporting illegal action will have the right to apply to the administrative court, demanding to oblige the relevant body to carry out a proper investigation based on their report, regardless of whether or not the reporting person’s rights have been violated.
Union of Informed Citizens
This preliminary report was funded through a Department of State Public Diplomacy Section grant, and the opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the Union of Informed Citizens and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of State․
