CAT/OP/ARM/1
law, and 1 international expert from the EU Advisory Group). Members are appointed by
the Human Rights Defender. However, there may be up to 20 members which means that
there are vacant positions.
16.
In February 2012, the Order was amended with the effect that the Expert Council is
to perform its functions totally independently and without administrative support from the
HRDO. Under the Order of Procedure of February 2012, the reports of the Expert Council
are to be sent to the HRDO Department on the Prevention of Torture and Violence for
review and possible additions. The reviewed reports are then returned to the Council for
adoption. However, the Order of Procedure clearly states that any information received by
the Expert Council is at the exclusive disposal of the Human Rights Defender.
17.
The amendment to the Order in 2012 was introduced as no funding was available to
pay for the expenses of the members of the Expert Council. The Expert Council continued
its visits in March and April 2012 in a supporting capacity to the NPM but discontinued
functioning from May/June 2012 due to a continued lack of funding.
18.
The SPT acknowledges the State party’s efforts in implementing its obligations
under the OPCAT and expresses its gratitude to the support provided prior to and during the
visit, which allowed it to meet with different stakeholders and monitor the implementation
of the mandate by the NPM. The SPT notes that the NPM is faced with several obstacles
hindering the full and effective implementation of its tasks, which this report will address in
the next chapter, together with recommendations to the State party.
19.
In accordance with its mandate, as set out in article 11 (b), subparagraphs (ii) and
(iii), the SPT will address a separate confidential report to the NPM of Armenia.
III. Main obstacles faced by the current national preventive
mechanism
20.
Institutional. The SPT notes that Armenia is characterized by a proliferation and
fragmentation of bodies aimed at the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, including the
HR Defender in its role as NPM under the amended HR Defender Act, the Expert Council,
as well as the public monitoring bodies relating to penitentiary institutions, police, and
special boarding schools.
21.
The Prison Monitoring Group was established by virtue of the order of the Ministry
of Justice No. KH-66-N and its members are appointed by the Minister of Justice for five
years. It has access to the pre-trial detention facilities and places of detention under the
authority of the Ministry of Justice. The Police Monitoring Group, established in 2005, has
access to the police temporary detention facilities and monitors conditions in these
facilities. It has the same working methods as the Prison Monitoring Group, and its
members are appointed by the Head of Police for a three-year term. The third public
monitoring group, monitoring special boarding schools, was created in 2006 by Order of
the Minister of Education.
22.
The above demonstrates that, although largely reactionary in nature, the mandates of
the public monitoring groups overlap greatly with that of the NPM, both in substance as
well as regarding types of places of detention. Moreover, almost all members of the NPM
Expert Council are also members on one of the three public monitoring groups. Not only
does this risk creating confusion on the part of authorities in charge of places of detention
as well as personnel working therein as to the mandate and identity of the NPM, it also
reduces the effectiveness of the work undertaken by the NPM, and risks leading to
incoherent results due to parallel monitoring.
5