| ARMENIA Republic of Armenia Hayastani Hanrapetut'yun Joined United Nations: 2 March 1992 Human Rights as assured by their constitution Click here Updated 08/13/10 |
| CAPITAL |
| POPULATION |
| CHIEF OF STATE |
| SELECTION PROCESS |
Yerevan
2,966,802 (July 2010 est.)
Serzh Sargsyan
President since 9 April 2008
President since 9 April 2008
President elected by popular vote for a five-year term (eligible
for a second term); election last held 19 February 2008
Next scheduled election: February 2013
for a second term); election last held 19 February 2008
Next scheduled election: February 2013
HEAD OF GOVERNMENT
SELECTION PROCESS
Tigran Sargsyan
Prime Minister since 9 April 2008
Prime Minister since 9 April 2008
Prime minister appointed by the president and confirmed with
the majority support of the National Assembly; the prime
minister and Council of Ministers must resign if the National
Assembly refuses to accept their program; elections: last held 12
May 2007
Next scheduled election: Spring 2012
the majority support of the National Assembly; the prime
minister and Council of Ministers must resign if the National
Assembly refuses to accept their program; elections: last held 12
May 2007
Next scheduled election: Spring 2012
| DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
| ETHNIC GROUPS |
Armenian 97.9%, Yezidi (Kurd) 1.3%, Russian 0.5%, other 0.3% (2001 census)
| RELIGIONS |
Armenian Apostolic 94.7%, other Christian 4%, Yezidi (monotheist with elements of nature worship) 1.3%
| GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE |
Republic comprised of 11 provinces (marzer, singular - marz); Legal system is based on civil law system
Executive: President elected by popular vote for a five-year term (eligible for a second term); election last held 19 February
2008 (next to be held February 2013); Prime Minister appointed by the president and confirmed with the majority support
of the National Assembly; the prime minister and Council of Ministers must resign if the National Assembly refuses to
accept their program. Elections: last held 12 May 2007 (next to be held in the spring of 2012)
Legislative: Unicameral National Assembly (Parliament) or Azgayin Zhoghov (131 seats; members elected by
popular vote to serve four-year terms; 90 members elected by party list, 41 by direct vote)
elections: last held 12 May 2007 (next to be held in the spring of 2012)
Judicial: Constitutional Court; Court of Cassation (Appeals Court)
Executive: President elected by popular vote for a five-year term (eligible for a second term); election last held 19 February
2008 (next to be held February 2013); Prime Minister appointed by the president and confirmed with the majority support
of the National Assembly; the prime minister and Council of Ministers must resign if the National Assembly refuses to
accept their program. Elections: last held 12 May 2007 (next to be held in the spring of 2012)
Legislative: Unicameral National Assembly (Parliament) or Azgayin Zhoghov (131 seats; members elected by
popular vote to serve four-year terms; 90 members elected by party list, 41 by direct vote)
elections: last held 12 May 2007 (next to be held in the spring of 2012)
Judicial: Constitutional Court; Court of Cassation (Appeals Court)
| LANGUAGES |
Armenian 97.7%, Yezidi 1%, Russian 0.9%, other 0.4% (2001 census)
| BRIEF HISTORY |
| ECONOMIC OVERVIEW |
After several years of double-digit economic growth, Armenia is facing a severe economic recession with GDP
declining at least 15% in 2009, despite large loans from multilateral institutions. Sharp declines in the construction
sector and workers' remittances, particularly from Russia, are the main reasons for the downturn. Under the old
Soviet central planning system, Armenia developed a modern industrial sector, supplying machine tools, textiles, and
other manufactured goods to sister republics, in exchange for raw materials and energy. Armenia has since switched
to small-scale agriculture and away from the large agroindustrial complexes of the Soviet era. Armenia has managed
to reduce poverty, slash inflation, stabilize its currency, and privatize most small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia had made progress in implementing some economic
reforms, including privatization, price reforms, and prudent fiscal policies, but geographic isolation, a narrow export
base, and pervasive monopolies in important business sectors have made Armenia particularly vulnerable to the
sharp deterioration in the global economy and the economic downturn in Russia. The conflict with Azerbaijan over
the ethnic Armenian-dominated region of Nagorno-Karabakh contributed to a severe economic decline in the early
1990s and Armenia's borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan remain closed. Armenia is particularly dependent on
Russian commercial and governmental support and most key Armenian infrastructure is Russian-owned and/or
managed, especially in the energy sector. The electricity distribution system was privatized in 2002 and bought by
Russia's RAO-UES in 2005. Construction of a pipeline to deliver natural gas from Iran to Armenia was completed in
December 2008 but it is unlikely significant quantities of gas will flow through it until the Yerevan Thermal Power
Plant renovation is completed in 2010. Armenia has some mineral deposits (copper, gold, bauxite). Pig iron,
unwrought copper, and other nonferrous metals are Armenia's highest valued exports. Armenia's severe trade
imbalance has been offset somewhat by international aid, remittances from Armenians working abroad, and foreign
direct investment. Armenia joined the WTO in January 2003. The government made some improvements in tax and
customs administration in recent years, but anti-corruption measures have been ineffective and the current economic
downturn has led to a sharp drop in tax revenue and forced the government to accept large loan packages from
Russia, the IMF, and other international financial institutions. Armenia will need to pursue additional economic
reforms in order to regain economic growth and improve economic competitiveness and employment opportunities,
especially given its economic isolation from two of its nearest neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Armenia)
declining at least 15% in 2009, despite large loans from multilateral institutions. Sharp declines in the construction
sector and workers' remittances, particularly from Russia, are the main reasons for the downturn. Under the old
Soviet central planning system, Armenia developed a modern industrial sector, supplying machine tools, textiles, and
other manufactured goods to sister republics, in exchange for raw materials and energy. Armenia has since switched
to small-scale agriculture and away from the large agroindustrial complexes of the Soviet era. Armenia has managed
to reduce poverty, slash inflation, stabilize its currency, and privatize most small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia had made progress in implementing some economic
reforms, including privatization, price reforms, and prudent fiscal policies, but geographic isolation, a narrow export
base, and pervasive monopolies in important business sectors have made Armenia particularly vulnerable to the
sharp deterioration in the global economy and the economic downturn in Russia. The conflict with Azerbaijan over
the ethnic Armenian-dominated region of Nagorno-Karabakh contributed to a severe economic decline in the early
1990s and Armenia's borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan remain closed. Armenia is particularly dependent on
Russian commercial and governmental support and most key Armenian infrastructure is Russian-owned and/or
managed, especially in the energy sector. The electricity distribution system was privatized in 2002 and bought by
Russia's RAO-UES in 2005. Construction of a pipeline to deliver natural gas from Iran to Armenia was completed in
December 2008 but it is unlikely significant quantities of gas will flow through it until the Yerevan Thermal Power
Plant renovation is completed in 2010. Armenia has some mineral deposits (copper, gold, bauxite). Pig iron,
unwrought copper, and other nonferrous metals are Armenia's highest valued exports. Armenia's severe trade
imbalance has been offset somewhat by international aid, remittances from Armenians working abroad, and foreign
direct investment. Armenia joined the WTO in January 2003. The government made some improvements in tax and
customs administration in recent years, but anti-corruption measures have been ineffective and the current economic
downturn has led to a sharp drop in tax revenue and forced the government to accept large loan packages from
Russia, the IMF, and other international financial institutions. Armenia will need to pursue additional economic
reforms in order to regain economic growth and improve economic competitiveness and employment opportunities,
especially given its economic isolation from two of its nearest neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Armenia)
| POLITICAL CLIMATE |
The observance of human rights in Armenia is uneven and is marked by shortcomings. Police brutality allegedly still
goes largely unreported, while observers note that defendants are often beaten to extract confessions and are denied
visits from relatives and lawyers. Public demonstrations usually take place without government interference, though
one rally in November 2000 by an opposition party was followed by the arrest and imprisonment for a month of its
organizer. Freedom of religion is not always protected under existing law. Nontraditional churches, especially the
Jehovah's Witnesses, have been subjected to harassment, sometimes violently. All churches apart from the Armenian
Apostolic Church must register with the government, and proselytizing was forbidden by law, though since 1997 the
government has pursued more moderate policies. The government's policy toward conscientious objection is in
transition, as part of Armenia's accession to the Council of Europe. Most of Armenia's ethnic Azeri population was
deported in 1988-1989 and remain refugees, largely in Azerbaijan. Armenia's record on discrimination toward the
few remaining national minorities is generally good. The government does not restrict internal or international travel.
Although freedom of the press and speech are guaranteed, the government maintains its monopoly over television
and radio broadcasting.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of Armenia
goes largely unreported, while observers note that defendants are often beaten to extract confessions and are denied
visits from relatives and lawyers. Public demonstrations usually take place without government interference, though
one rally in November 2000 by an opposition party was followed by the arrest and imprisonment for a month of its
organizer. Freedom of religion is not always protected under existing law. Nontraditional churches, especially the
Jehovah's Witnesses, have been subjected to harassment, sometimes violently. All churches apart from the Armenian
Apostolic Church must register with the government, and proselytizing was forbidden by law, though since 1997 the
government has pursued more moderate policies. The government's policy toward conscientious objection is in
transition, as part of Armenia's accession to the Council of Europe. Most of Armenia's ethnic Azeri population was
deported in 1988-1989 and remain refugees, largely in Azerbaijan. Armenia's record on discrimination toward the
few remaining national minorities is generally good. The government does not restrict internal or international travel.
Although freedom of the press and speech are guaranteed, the government maintains its monopoly over television
and radio broadcasting.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of Armenia
| INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES |
Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s, has militarily
occupied 16% of Azerbaijan - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continues to mediate
dispute; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; about 230,000
ethnic Armenians were driven from their homes in Azerbaijan into Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan
seeks transit route through Armenia to connect to Naxcivan exclave; border with Turkey remains closed over
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute; ethnic Armenian groups in Javakheti region of Georgia seek greater autonomy;
Armenians continue to emigrate, primarily to Russia, seeking employment
occupied 16% of Azerbaijan - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continues to mediate
dispute; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; about 230,000
ethnic Armenians were driven from their homes in Azerbaijan into Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan
seeks transit route through Armenia to connect to Naxcivan exclave; border with Turkey remains closed over
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute; ethnic Armenian groups in Javakheti region of Georgia seek greater autonomy;
Armenians continue to emigrate, primarily to Russia, seeking employment
| REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDP) |
Refugees (country of origin): 113,295 (Azerbaijan)
IDPs: 8,400 (conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, majority have returned home since 1994 ceasefire)
(2007)
IDPs: 8,400 (conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, majority have returned home since 1994 ceasefire)
(2007)
| ILLICIT DRUGS |
Illicit cultivation of small amount of cannabis for domestic consumption; minor transit point for illicit drugs - mostly
opium and hashish - moving from Southwest Asia to Russia and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe
opium and hashish - moving from Southwest Asia to Russia and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe
| HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENTS, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUES |
2009 Human Rights Report: Armenia
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Armenia is a constitutional republic with a population of approximately 3.2 million. The constitution provides for an elected
president and a unicameral legislature (the National Assembly). The country has a multiparty political system. The significantly
flawed February 2008 presidential election and violent break-up of ensuing protests that resulted in 10 deaths continued to fuel a
political crisis that remained largely unresolved during the year and resulted in numerous human rights abuses. In April 2008 Serzh
Sargsian of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) was sworn in as president, replacing Robert Kocharian. In the National
Assembly, the RPA continued to dominate the ruling coalition, which decreased from four parties to three on April 27, when the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun) resigned from the coalition citing differences over the conduct of foreign
policy. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, although some members of the security
forces continued to commit human rights abuses with impunity while under the direction of civilian leadership.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Armenia is a constitutional republic with a population of approximately 3.2 million. The constitution provides for an elected
president and a unicameral legislature (the National Assembly). The country has a multiparty political system. The significantly
flawed February 2008 presidential election and violent break-up of ensuing protests that resulted in 10 deaths continued to fuel a
political crisis that remained largely unresolved during the year and resulted in numerous human rights abuses. In April 2008 Serzh
Sargsian of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) was sworn in as president, replacing Robert Kocharian. In the National
Assembly, the RPA continued to dominate the ruling coalition, which decreased from four parties to three on April 27, when the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun) resigned from the coalition citing differences over the conduct of foreign
policy. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, although some members of the security
forces continued to commit human rights abuses with impunity while under the direction of civilian leadership.
- Authorities restricted the right of citizens to freely change their government in mayoral elections in Yerevan.
- During the year authorities subjected citizens, particularly those considered by the government to be political opponents, to
arbitrary arrest, detention, and imprisonment for their political activities; - lengthy pretrial detention also continued to be a problem.
- Authorities continued to use harassment and intrusive application of bureaucratic measures to intimidate and retaliate against
political opponents. - Authorities used force to disperse political demonstrations and constrain citizens seeking to publicize them.
- Police beat pretrial detainees and failed to provide due process in some cases.
- The National Security Service (NSS) and police acted with impunity in committing alleged human rights abuses.
- In spite of renovations and new construction, prison conditions remained cramped and unhealthy.
- Authorities denied citizens the right to a fair trial.
- News outlets, especially in the broadcast media, practiced a high degree of self-censorship, and authorities continued to
restrict media pluralism, including through a moratorium on renewal of broadcasting licenses. - There were multiple attacks against journalists, and the government rarely identified or prosecuted perpetrators.
- Authorities restricted freedom of assembly, rejecting numerous applications filed by political opponents to hold
demonstrations at requested venues, and often prevented spontaneous assembly by citizens. - Corruption remained widespread, and authorities did not make determined efforts to combat it.
- Authorities and laws restricted religious freedom.
- Violence against women and spousal abuse, trafficking in persons, and discrimination against persons with disabilities and
homosexual individuals was also reported.
2 February 2009
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Forty-third session
19 January-6 February 2009
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Armenia
Introduction
2. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the State party for its combined third and fourth periodic reports.
3. The Committee commends the State party for submitting its written replies to the list of issues and questions posed by the
Committee’s pre-session working group and for the oral presentation and further clarifications given in response to the questions
posed orally by the Committee.
Positive aspects
5. The Committee commends the State party for acceding, in May 2006, to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
6. The Committee commends the State party on revisions made to the Constitution in 2005, and in particular the adoption of article
14.1 guaranteeing equality before the law.
Principal areas of concern and recommendations
8. While recalling the State party’s obligation to systematically and continuously implement all the provisions of the Convention, the
Committee views the concerns and recommendations identified in the present concluding comments as requiring the State party’s
priority attention between now and the submission of the next periodic report. Consequently, the Committee calls upon the State
party to focus on those areas in its implementation activities and to report on actions taken and results achieved in its next periodic
report. It also calls upon the State party to submit the present concluding comments to all relevant ministries and to the Parliament
so as to ensure their full implementation.
Parliament
9. While reaffirming that the Government has the primary responsibility and is particularly accountable for the full implementation
of the State party’s obligations under the Convention, the Committee stresses that the Convention is binding on all branches of
Government, and it invites the State party to encourage its Parliament, in line with its procedures, where appropriate, to take the
necessary steps with regard to the implementation of these concluding observations and the Government’s next reporting process
under the Convention.
Click here to read more »
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Forty-third session
19 January-6 February 2009
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Armenia
Introduction
2. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the State party for its combined third and fourth periodic reports.
3. The Committee commends the State party for submitting its written replies to the list of issues and questions posed by the
Committee’s pre-session working group and for the oral presentation and further clarifications given in response to the questions
posed orally by the Committee.
Positive aspects
5. The Committee commends the State party for acceding, in May 2006, to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
6. The Committee commends the State party on revisions made to the Constitution in 2005, and in particular the adoption of article
14.1 guaranteeing equality before the law.
Principal areas of concern and recommendations
8. While recalling the State party’s obligation to systematically and continuously implement all the provisions of the Convention, the
Committee views the concerns and recommendations identified in the present concluding comments as requiring the State party’s
priority attention between now and the submission of the next periodic report. Consequently, the Committee calls upon the State
party to focus on those areas in its implementation activities and to report on actions taken and results achieved in its next periodic
report. It also calls upon the State party to submit the present concluding comments to all relevant ministries and to the Parliament
so as to ensure their full implementation.
Parliament
9. While reaffirming that the Government has the primary responsibility and is particularly accountable for the full implementation
of the State party’s obligations under the Convention, the Committee stresses that the Convention is binding on all branches of
Government, and it invites the State party to encourage its Parliament, in line with its procedures, where appropriate, to take the
necessary steps with regard to the implementation of these concluding observations and the Government’s next reporting process
under the Convention.
Click here to read more »
FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2010 REPORT
Political Rights Score: 6
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free
Explanatory Note
The numerical ratings and status listed above do not reflect conditions in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is examined in a
separate report.
Overview
The ruling Republican Party won municipal elections in the capital in May 2009, securing a majority of council seats and
confirmation of the appointed incumbent as mayor. International observers alleged widespread fraud, and opposition parties refused
to recognize the results. Meanwhile, police abuses committed during the violence that followed the 2008 presidential election
remained largely unpunished, and a number of opposition supporters who were arrested during the 2008 crackdown were still
behind bars at year’s end.
The 2008 presidential election was held on February 19. Five days after the balloting, the Central Election Commission announced
that Sarkisian had won 52.8 percent and the main opposition candidate, former president Levon Ter-Petrosian, had taken 21.5
percent. The results, which the opposition disputed, allowed Sarkisian to avoid a runoff vote. Peaceful opposition demonstrations
that began on February 21 turned violent a week later when the police engaged the protesters. According to the OSCE, 10 people
were killed and more than 200 were injured during the clashes. Outgoing president Kocharian declared a 20-day state of
emergency, and more than 100 people were arrested in the wake of the upheaval. The OSCE’s final observation report stated that
the electoral deficiencies had “resulted primarily from a lack of sufficient will to implement legal provisions effectively and
impartially.”
By the end of 2009, little had been done to punish police officers for abuse during the 2008 postelection violence. Though there
were reportedly hundreds of internal inquiries, only a handful of officers were charged with using excessive force. In late 2009,
investigators for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) criticized the results of an Armenian parliamentary
inquiry, which found that the crackdown on the postelection protests had been “by and large legitimate and adequate.” A general
amnesty bill passed in June freed 30 protesters, but more than a dozen reportedly remained in prison at year’s end.
Municipal elections for Yerevan were held in May 2009. The HHK secured 35 of 65 seats in the city council, meaning the appointed
HHK incumbent was reinstated as mayor. Opposition parties refused to recognize the results, accusing the ruling party of fraud.
Observers with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) reported witnessing “egregious violations,” and the
Council of Europe similarly cited “serious deficiencies.”
Click here to read more »
Political Rights Score: 6
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free
Explanatory Note
The numerical ratings and status listed above do not reflect conditions in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is examined in a
separate report.
Overview
The ruling Republican Party won municipal elections in the capital in May 2009, securing a majority of council seats and
confirmation of the appointed incumbent as mayor. International observers alleged widespread fraud, and opposition parties refused
to recognize the results. Meanwhile, police abuses committed during the violence that followed the 2008 presidential election
remained largely unpunished, and a number of opposition supporters who were arrested during the 2008 crackdown were still
behind bars at year’s end.
The 2008 presidential election was held on February 19. Five days after the balloting, the Central Election Commission announced
that Sarkisian had won 52.8 percent and the main opposition candidate, former president Levon Ter-Petrosian, had taken 21.5
percent. The results, which the opposition disputed, allowed Sarkisian to avoid a runoff vote. Peaceful opposition demonstrations
that began on February 21 turned violent a week later when the police engaged the protesters. According to the OSCE, 10 people
were killed and more than 200 were injured during the clashes. Outgoing president Kocharian declared a 20-day state of
emergency, and more than 100 people were arrested in the wake of the upheaval. The OSCE’s final observation report stated that
the electoral deficiencies had “resulted primarily from a lack of sufficient will to implement legal provisions effectively and
impartially.”
By the end of 2009, little had been done to punish police officers for abuse during the 2008 postelection violence. Though there
were reportedly hundreds of internal inquiries, only a handful of officers were charged with using excessive force. In late 2009,
investigators for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) criticized the results of an Armenian parliamentary
inquiry, which found that the crackdown on the postelection protests had been “by and large legitimate and adequate.” A general
amnesty bill passed in June freed 30 protesters, but more than a dozen reportedly remained in prison at year’s end.
Municipal elections for Yerevan were held in May 2009. The HHK secured 35 of 65 seats in the city council, meaning the appointed
HHK incumbent was reinstated as mayor. Opposition parties refused to recognize the results, accusing the ruling party of fraud.
Observers with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) reported witnessing “egregious violations,” and the
Council of Europe similarly cited “serious deficiencies.”
Click here to read more »
15 July 2010
Public
Amnesty International
Bayatyan v Armenia
I. Introduction
1. These comments are submitted by Amnesty International, Conscience and Peace Tax International, Friends World Committee
for Consultation (Quakers), International Commission of Jurists, and War Resisters' International (‘the Interveners’), pursuant to
Article 36 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights following the leave granted by the President of the Court in
accordance with Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of the Court by letter dated 24 June 2010. (See Annex 1 for a Description of the
Intervening Organisations.)
2. The present submission draws substantially on the interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) and by other international and regional bodies of the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion in relation to conscientious objection to military service.
II. Issues addressed in this submission
3. This submission addresses: the protection of conscientious objection to military service in international human rights standards;
limitations on manifestation of religion or belief; and the reference to military service and conscientious objection in Article 4 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereafter, “the Convention”).
II.i Overview
4. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion comprises two elements: the right to hold convictions or beliefs, and
the right to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The Interveners submit, consistent with
the jurisprudence of other international human rights bodies and mechanisms, that conscientious objection to military service is a
belief of sufficient seriousness and cogency to attract the protection of Article 9.1 Compulsion to engage in military service
contrary to such a belief is in itself a violation of the individual’s freedom of conscience. In addition, compulsory military service,
without provision for those who are conscientious objectors for religious or other reasons, amounts to an unjustified interference
with the right to manifest a religion or belief. The UN Human Rights Committee has identified both elements in relation to
conscientious objection to military service. In its most recent Views on an individual petition the Committee found that the authors’
“conviction and sentence amounted to an infringement of their freedom of conscience and a restriction on their ability to manifest
their religion or belief”.2
Click here to read more »
Public
Amnesty International
Bayatyan v Armenia
I. Introduction
1. These comments are submitted by Amnesty International, Conscience and Peace Tax International, Friends World Committee
for Consultation (Quakers), International Commission of Jurists, and War Resisters' International (‘the Interveners’), pursuant to
Article 36 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights following the leave granted by the President of the Court in
accordance with Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of the Court by letter dated 24 June 2010. (See Annex 1 for a Description of the
Intervening Organisations.)
2. The present submission draws substantially on the interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) and by other international and regional bodies of the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion in relation to conscientious objection to military service.
II. Issues addressed in this submission
3. This submission addresses: the protection of conscientious objection to military service in international human rights standards;
limitations on manifestation of religion or belief; and the reference to military service and conscientious objection in Article 4 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereafter, “the Convention”).
II.i Overview
4. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion comprises two elements: the right to hold convictions or beliefs, and
the right to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The Interveners submit, consistent with
the jurisprudence of other international human rights bodies and mechanisms, that conscientious objection to military service is a
belief of sufficient seriousness and cogency to attract the protection of Article 9.1 Compulsion to engage in military service
contrary to such a belief is in itself a violation of the individual’s freedom of conscience. In addition, compulsory military service,
without provision for those who are conscientious objectors for religious or other reasons, amounts to an unjustified interference
with the right to manifest a religion or belief. The UN Human Rights Committee has identified both elements in relation to
conscientious objection to military service. In its most recent Views on an individual petition the Committee found that the authors’
“conviction and sentence amounted to an infringement of their freedom of conscience and a restriction on their ability to manifest
their religion or belief”.2
Click here to read more »
Letter to President Serzh Sargsyan regarding the negative impact on media pluralism in Armenia
June 15, 2010
Dear President Sargsyan,
Human Rights Watch is writing to express its concern regarding the negative impact on media pluralism and public access to
diversity of information and opinion in Armenia, recent amendments to the "Law on Television and Radio," are likely to have. We
urge you to refrain from signing the law and instead return it to the National Assembly and urge them to continue their deliberations
with the aim of bringing any and all amendments into compliance with Armenia's international obligations on freedom of expression.
While we appreciate the government's intent to regulate Armenia's ongoing transition to mandatory digital broadcasting, it is
unfortunate that the rushed legislative process did not allow for full incorporation of concerns expressed by civil society and
Armenia's international partners, including the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE).
We are first concerned that the amendments to the law will reduce the number of television stations able to broadcast in Armenia
from 22 to 18. The changes in the legislation could have created room for more actors to participate in provision of media
facilitated by digitalization, yet reducing the number of television broadcasters poses the opposite risk of limiting media pluralism.
There is a serious concern that the reduction in available television stations may particularly disadvantage new television
broadcasters, especially as the amendments indicate that preference in future licensing competitions should be given to existing
broadcasters or those with at least three years' experience.
Armenia's civil society members and international partners have also criticized numerous other aspects of the amendments,
including the failure to require the National Television and Radio Commission (NTRC) to provide explanations for its decisions to
reject broadcasting license applications, which would increase transparency of the licensing process. The amendments also do not
address long-standing concerns that the law does not ensure pluralism in the selection and appointment of members of the National
Television and Radio Commission (NTRC), which is responsible for the granting of licenses.
In a welcome step, during the final reading of the law the National Assembly convened a working group to revise the law which
included non-governmental organizations and opposition parliamentarians. However, the rushed legislative process did not allow for
a thorough public discussion of the draft. On June 10, a group of Yerevan-based ambassadors of European countries urged the
Armenian government to "continue working closely with civil society, the Council of Europe and OSCE experts with a view to
bringing the law further into line with international standards." However, the National Assembly adopted the bill in an emergency
session later that same night.
Click here to read more »
June 15, 2010
Dear President Sargsyan,
Human Rights Watch is writing to express its concern regarding the negative impact on media pluralism and public access to
diversity of information and opinion in Armenia, recent amendments to the "Law on Television and Radio," are likely to have. We
urge you to refrain from signing the law and instead return it to the National Assembly and urge them to continue their deliberations
with the aim of bringing any and all amendments into compliance with Armenia's international obligations on freedom of expression.
While we appreciate the government's intent to regulate Armenia's ongoing transition to mandatory digital broadcasting, it is
unfortunate that the rushed legislative process did not allow for full incorporation of concerns expressed by civil society and
Armenia's international partners, including the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE).
We are first concerned that the amendments to the law will reduce the number of television stations able to broadcast in Armenia
from 22 to 18. The changes in the legislation could have created room for more actors to participate in provision of media
facilitated by digitalization, yet reducing the number of television broadcasters poses the opposite risk of limiting media pluralism.
There is a serious concern that the reduction in available television stations may particularly disadvantage new television
broadcasters, especially as the amendments indicate that preference in future licensing competitions should be given to existing
broadcasters or those with at least three years' experience.
Armenia's civil society members and international partners have also criticized numerous other aspects of the amendments,
including the failure to require the National Television and Radio Commission (NTRC) to provide explanations for its decisions to
reject broadcasting license applications, which would increase transparency of the licensing process. The amendments also do not
address long-standing concerns that the law does not ensure pluralism in the selection and appointment of members of the National
Television and Radio Commission (NTRC), which is responsible for the granting of licenses.
In a welcome step, during the final reading of the law the National Assembly convened a working group to revise the law which
included non-governmental organizations and opposition parliamentarians. However, the rushed legislative process did not allow for
a thorough public discussion of the draft. On June 10, a group of Yerevan-based ambassadors of European countries urged the
Armenian government to "continue working closely with civil society, the Council of Europe and OSCE experts with a view to
bringing the law further into line with international standards." However, the National Assembly adopted the bill in an emergency
session later that same night.
Click here to read more »
President Serzh Sargsyan’s Address on the Commemoration of the 95th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
24.04.2010
Dear Compatriots:
Today is April 24. Ninety-five years ago on this day, a state-devised plan unleashed a crime whose viciousness, magnitude, or
consequences are unparalleled not only in the history of the Armenian nation but also in the history of the world. The plan of
extermination of the Armenians was implemented by the Ottoman Empire’s state machine through all its structures, which were
acting upon exact instructions. April 24, 1915 became a dividing line: the millennia long journey of the Armenian nation had been
stopped and split in two: before and after the dividing line.
One and a half million victims, an entire nation expelled from its motherland, an ancient culture destroyed – this was the outcome of
the maniacal obsession and ideology aimed at the extermination of the Armenians which turned into state policy. It was measured that
the splinters of the Armenian nation that had managed to miraculously escape the Genocide would not be able to recover from the
blow, would disappear in the whirlpools on five continents, lose their national identity, and aptitude to be a political factor. But we, as
a nation and as a state, were able to reappear at the international arena to affirm that we continue our eternal journey and that we are
determined not to allow for such a crime to ever happen again.
We are grateful to all those, who in many countries of the world, including in Turkey, realize the significance of preventing crimes
against humanity and stay by our side in this struggle. This process is unstoppable and has no alternative.
Today, together with the entire nation, I bow to the memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide. They bequeathed us
to live and to work for everything good and beautiful, for our Motherland, for our national ideals, and for the humanity. We will not
fail their memory and will fulfill their covenant.
Click here to read more »
24.04.2010
Dear Compatriots:
Today is April 24. Ninety-five years ago on this day, a state-devised plan unleashed a crime whose viciousness, magnitude, or
consequences are unparalleled not only in the history of the Armenian nation but also in the history of the world. The plan of
extermination of the Armenians was implemented by the Ottoman Empire’s state machine through all its structures, which were
acting upon exact instructions. April 24, 1915 became a dividing line: the millennia long journey of the Armenian nation had been
stopped and split in two: before and after the dividing line.
One and a half million victims, an entire nation expelled from its motherland, an ancient culture destroyed – this was the outcome of
the maniacal obsession and ideology aimed at the extermination of the Armenians which turned into state policy. It was measured that
the splinters of the Armenian nation that had managed to miraculously escape the Genocide would not be able to recover from the
blow, would disappear in the whirlpools on five continents, lose their national identity, and aptitude to be a political factor. But we, as
a nation and as a state, were able to reappear at the international arena to affirm that we continue our eternal journey and that we are
determined not to allow for such a crime to ever happen again.
We are grateful to all those, who in many countries of the world, including in Turkey, realize the significance of preventing crimes
against humanity and stay by our side in this struggle. This process is unstoppable and has no alternative.
Today, together with the entire nation, I bow to the memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide. They bequeathed us
to live and to work for everything good and beautiful, for our Motherland, for our national ideals, and for the humanity. We will not
fail their memory and will fulfill their covenant.
Click here to read more »
Ad-hoc Public Report of Ombudsman on “Right to Freedom of Expression in the Republic of Armenia”
07/07/10
According to the article 17.2 of the RA Law «On the Human Rights Defender» on July 7, 2010 the Human Rights Defender of the
Republic of Armenia presents an Ad-hoc Public Report on the «Right to Freedom of Expression in the Republic of Armenia».
The comprehensive analyses of the sphere have been carried out with the presumption that freedom of expression is the
cornerstone of democratic principles and rule-of-law. In particular the Report touches upon the legal acts regulating the relations in
the sphere of freedom of expression with a special attention to gaps and contradictions in the related legislation, as well as
provisions negatively affecting the situation of freedom of expression. Specific examples of cases of violations of the rights of
journalists including cases of assaults against them are presented and analyzed in the Report. These cases of assaults not only
violate the right to freedom of expression but also threatens the life and health of journalists. Report also reflects the current
situation of mass media, in particular TV and Radio broadcasting in the Republic of Armenia and certain press related issues, as
well as ways of their solutions. Report analyses major causes of the restrictions of freedom of expression, as well as presents
examples of such cases occurred in recent years, such as restrictions on printing of some newspapers during the 20–day state of
emergency declared by the President of the Republic on March 1, 2008.
An analysis of the overall situation with freedom of expression in the sphere of Television and Radio broadcasting reveals a number
of existing problems hindering the improvement of the sphere. With this regard the Report reflects on the case of depriving the A1
Plus TV Company from the licensees to broadcast; a case which the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a
violation of Article 10 of the Convention, considering that a licensing procedure organized by corresponding autorities did not give
reasons for its decisions (to refuse) and thereby did not provide adequate protection possibility in arbitrary to claim the violation of
the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
In the conclusion of the report embraces the fact that the current situation in the sphere of freedom of expression is very alarming
and long-term and short-term measures are to be urgently taken in order to improve it. In particular, it is necessary to elaborate a
package of legal reforms in the sphere of the freedom of expression and especially that of the media. The adoption of this package
will lead to the reduction in the number of legal provisions that impede the establishment of the freedom of expression whereas
additional provisions will be envisaged to ensure the progress of this sphere. It is crucial also to conduct multifaceted actions to
raise public awareness, to promote tolerance and to overcome the flawed phenomena existing in the area.
Click here to read more »
07/07/10
According to the article 17.2 of the RA Law «On the Human Rights Defender» on July 7, 2010 the Human Rights Defender of the
Republic of Armenia presents an Ad-hoc Public Report on the «Right to Freedom of Expression in the Republic of Armenia».
The comprehensive analyses of the sphere have been carried out with the presumption that freedom of expression is the
cornerstone of democratic principles and rule-of-law. In particular the Report touches upon the legal acts regulating the relations in
the sphere of freedom of expression with a special attention to gaps and contradictions in the related legislation, as well as
provisions negatively affecting the situation of freedom of expression. Specific examples of cases of violations of the rights of
journalists including cases of assaults against them are presented and analyzed in the Report. These cases of assaults not only
violate the right to freedom of expression but also threatens the life and health of journalists. Report also reflects the current
situation of mass media, in particular TV and Radio broadcasting in the Republic of Armenia and certain press related issues, as
well as ways of their solutions. Report analyses major causes of the restrictions of freedom of expression, as well as presents
examples of such cases occurred in recent years, such as restrictions on printing of some newspapers during the 20–day state of
emergency declared by the President of the Republic on March 1, 2008.
An analysis of the overall situation with freedom of expression in the sphere of Television and Radio broadcasting reveals a number
of existing problems hindering the improvement of the sphere. With this regard the Report reflects on the case of depriving the A1
Plus TV Company from the licensees to broadcast; a case which the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a
violation of Article 10 of the Convention, considering that a licensing procedure organized by corresponding autorities did not give
reasons for its decisions (to refuse) and thereby did not provide adequate protection possibility in arbitrary to claim the violation of
the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
In the conclusion of the report embraces the fact that the current situation in the sphere of freedom of expression is very alarming
and long-term and short-term measures are to be urgently taken in order to improve it. In particular, it is necessary to elaborate a
package of legal reforms in the sphere of the freedom of expression and especially that of the media. The adoption of this package
will lead to the reduction in the number of legal provisions that impede the establishment of the freedom of expression whereas
additional provisions will be envisaged to ensure the progress of this sphere. It is crucial also to conduct multifaceted actions to
raise public awareness, to promote tolerance and to overcome the flawed phenomena existing in the area.
Click here to read more »
Statement on the overcrowding of the penitentiary institutions
July 26, 2010
During the last years increase of the number of the people deprived of liberty was observed; during the last one year the number of
the people deprived of liberty was increased by more than 20%. Penitentiary Institutions are overcrowded. In particular, as of July
1, 2010, 4850 people deprived of liberty are kept in the penitentiary institutions designated for 4396 people. For instance, in
"Nubarashen" penitentiary institution in the cell designated for 8 people, twice more even up to 20 people are kept. The beds are not
enough, as a result the people deprived of liberty sleep by turns, some of them at night, some of them in the afternoon. Less than
2sq.m area is allocated to every person deprived of liberty, whereas according to RA legislation, as well as international standards at
least 4sq.m should be afforded. Overcrowding causes health and physiological problems, lack of air, deterioration of the health,
physiological tension and conflicts. These keeping conditions are interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment and in certain cases also as torture.
The reasons of the overcrowding are the following; increase of the number of crimes, wide usage of the detention as a measure of
restraint by the courts. Whereas when interpreting article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as article 9 of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to freedom) European Court of Human rights and Human Rights Committee have
pointed out that detention is the most severe measure of restraint and should be used as a measure of last resort and only if less
restrictive measures cannot ensure the proper conduct of the defendant and due administration of justice.
The other reasons are limited usage of alternative punishments and conditional release on parole. According to the data of 2009 only
14% of the prisoners who had opportunity to be released on parole were approved for the release. This is conditioned by the factor
that there are no relevant criteria on which the committees on conditional release can make their decisions. Besides, the members of
the independent committees on the conditional release on parole represent state bodies, including law enforcement bodies, are led by
the interest of their departments and subjective factors.
In order to terminate human rights mass violations in the penitentiary institutions we find that decision on amnesty should be made.
We, the undersigned, express our deep concern about the current situation and call upon the competent authorities to take actions
aimed at the solution of the overcrowding of penitentiary institutions.
We call upon the investigative bodies, and the judiciary to use the detention as a measure of restraint only as a last resort, preferring
alternative measures of restraints.
Click here to read more »
July 26, 2010
During the last years increase of the number of the people deprived of liberty was observed; during the last one year the number of
the people deprived of liberty was increased by more than 20%. Penitentiary Institutions are overcrowded. In particular, as of July
1, 2010, 4850 people deprived of liberty are kept in the penitentiary institutions designated for 4396 people. For instance, in
"Nubarashen" penitentiary institution in the cell designated for 8 people, twice more even up to 20 people are kept. The beds are not
enough, as a result the people deprived of liberty sleep by turns, some of them at night, some of them in the afternoon. Less than
2sq.m area is allocated to every person deprived of liberty, whereas according to RA legislation, as well as international standards at
least 4sq.m should be afforded. Overcrowding causes health and physiological problems, lack of air, deterioration of the health,
physiological tension and conflicts. These keeping conditions are interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment and in certain cases also as torture.
The reasons of the overcrowding are the following; increase of the number of crimes, wide usage of the detention as a measure of
restraint by the courts. Whereas when interpreting article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as article 9 of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to freedom) European Court of Human rights and Human Rights Committee have
pointed out that detention is the most severe measure of restraint and should be used as a measure of last resort and only if less
restrictive measures cannot ensure the proper conduct of the defendant and due administration of justice.
The other reasons are limited usage of alternative punishments and conditional release on parole. According to the data of 2009 only
14% of the prisoners who had opportunity to be released on parole were approved for the release. This is conditioned by the factor
that there are no relevant criteria on which the committees on conditional release can make their decisions. Besides, the members of
the independent committees on the conditional release on parole represent state bodies, including law enforcement bodies, are led by
the interest of their departments and subjective factors.
In order to terminate human rights mass violations in the penitentiary institutions we find that decision on amnesty should be made.
We, the undersigned, express our deep concern about the current situation and call upon the competent authorities to take actions
aimed at the solution of the overcrowding of penitentiary institutions.
We call upon the investigative bodies, and the judiciary to use the detention as a measure of restraint only as a last resort, preferring
alternative measures of restraints.
Click here to read more »
Archaeologists refer to the Shulaveri-Shomu culture of the central Transcaucasus region, including modern Armenia,
as the earliest known prehistoric culture in the area, carbon-dated to roughly 6000 - 4000 BC. However, a recently
discovered tomb has been dated to 9000 BC. Another early culture in the Armenian Highland and surrounding
areas—the Kura-Araxes culture—is assigned the period of ca. 4000 - 2200 BC, and is believed to have
subsequently developed into the Trialeti culture (ca. 2200 - 1500 BC). Armenians are one of the oldest Indo-
European subgroups. The original Armenian name for the country was Hayq, later Hayastan, translated as the land of
Haik, and consisting of the name Haik and the Iranian suffix '-stan' (land). According to legend, Haik was a great-
great-grandson of Noah (son of Togarmah, who was a son of Gomer, a son of Noah's son, Yafet), and according to
tradition, a forefather of all Armenians. Mount Ararat, a sacred mountain for the Armenian people, rising in the center
of the Armenian Highland as its highest peak, is traditionally considered the landing place of Noah's Ark. Between
1500 - 1200 BC, the Hayasa-Azzi existed in the western half of the Armenian Highland, often clashing with the
Hittite Empire. Between 1200 - 800 BC, much of Armenia was united under a confederation of kingdoms, which
Assyrian sources called Nairi ("Land of Rivers" in Assyrian"). The Egyptians used Nairi for Mitanni, referring to the
"Land of Rivers". Nairi was later absorbed into the kingdom of Urartu. The Kingdom of Urartu flourished in the
Caucasus and eastern Asia Minor between the 9th century BC and 585 BC in the Armenian Highland when the first
Armenian Empire was forged. After the fall of Urartu around 585 BC, the Kingdom of Armenia was ruled by the
Armenian Orontid Dynasty, which governed the state in 585 - 190 BC. Under Orontids, Armenia at times was an
independent kingdom, and at other times a satrapy of the Persian Empire. After the destruction of the Seleucid
Empire, a Hellenistic Greek successor state of Alexander the Great's short-lived empire, a Hellenistic Armenian state
was founded in 190 BC, with Artaxias becoming its first kings and the founder of the Artaxiad dynasty (190 BC - 1
AD). Under Nero, the Romans fought a campaign (55–63) against the Parthian Empire, which had invaded the
kingdom of Armenia, allied to the Romans. In 301, Armenia became the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state
religion. It established a church that still exists independently of both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox
churches, having become so in 451 after having rejected the Council of Chalcedon. In 591, the great Byzantine
warrior and Emperor Maurice defeated the Persians and recovered much of the remaining territory of Armenia into
the empire. The conquest was completed by the Emperor Heraclius in 629. Evolving as a feudal kingdom in the 9th
century, the Bagratuni Dynasty led Armenia on a brief cultural, political, and economic renewal. The Seljuk Turks
under Alp Arslan in turn took the city in 1064. In 1071, after the defeat of the Byzantine forces by the Seljuk Turks
at the Battle of Manzikert, the Turks captured the rest of Greater Armenia and much of Anatolia. So ended Christian
leadership of Armenia for the next millennium with the exception of a period of the late 12th-early 13th centuries. To
escape death or servitude at the hands of those who had assassinated his relative, Gagik II, King of Ani, an
Armenian named Roupen with some of his countrymen went into the gorges of the Taurus Mountains and then into
Tarsus of Cilicia. Here the Byzantine governor of the place gave them shelter. Thus, from around 1080 to 1375, the
focus of Armenian nationalism moved south, as the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. After the members of the first
Crusade appeared in Asia Minor, the Armenians developed close ties to European Crusader States, flourished in
southeastern Asia Minor until it was conquered by Muslim states.The failed Third Crusade and other events
elsewhere left Cilicia as the sole substantial Christian presence in the Middle East. Armenian sovereignty lasted till
1375, when the Mamelukes of Egypt profited from the unstable situation of Lesser Armenia and destroyed it.
Mehmed II conquered Constantinople from the Byzantines in 1453, and made it the Ottoman Empire's capital.
Mehmed and his successors used the religious systems of their subject nationalities as a method of population
control, and so Ottoman Sultans invited an Armenian archbishop to establish an Armenian patriarchate in
Constantinople. The Armenians of Constantinople grew in numbers, and became respected, if not full, members of
Ottoman society. In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian War, 1826-1828, the parts of historic Armenia under
Persian control, centering on Yerevan and Lake Sevan, were incorporated into Russia. Under Russian rule, the area
corresponding approximately to modern-day Armenian territory was called "Province of Yerevan". The Armenian
national liberation movement was the Armenian effort to free the historic Armenian homeland of eastern Asia Minor
and Transcaucasus from Russian and Ottoman domination and re-establish the independent Armenian state. In 1839,
the situation of the Ottoman Armenians slightly improved after Abdul Mejid I carried out reforms in its territories.
However, later Sultans, such as Abdul Hamid II stopped the reforms and carried out massacres, now known as the
Hamidian massacres of 1895-96. In 1915, the Ottoman Empire systematically carried out the Armenian Genocide,
during which 1.5 million Armenians perished. The ethnic cleansing of Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman
Empire is a genocide, with one wave of massacres in the years 1894 to 1896 culminating in the events of the
Armenian Genocide in 1915 -1923. With World War I in progress, the Ottoman Turks accused the (Christian)
Armenians as liable to ally with Imperial Russia, and used it as a pretext to deal with the entire Armenian population
as an enemy within their empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the takeover of the Bolsheviks, Stepan
Shaumyan was placed in charge of Armenia. In 1922, Armenia became part of the Soviet Union as one of three
republics comprising the Transcaucasian SFSR. The Transcaucasian SFSR was dissolved in 1936 and as a result
Armenia became a constituent republic of the Soviet Union as the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Soviet
Armenia participated in World War II by sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the frontline in order to
defend the "Soviet motherland." On February 20, 1988, interethnic fighting between the ethnic Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijanis broke out shortly after the parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh, an autonomous
oblast in Azerbaijan, voted to unify the region with Armenia. Armenia declared its sovereignty over the Soviet Union
on August 23, 1990. In the wake of the August Coup, a referendum was held on the question of secession.
Following an overwhelming vote in favor, full independence was declared on September 21, 1991. However,
widespread recognition did not occur until the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. After
Robert Kocharian came to power in 1998, the difficult life conditions of Armenia gradually started to change. The
Armenian diaspora, and especially the ARF, obtained more freedom to carry out economic projects in the fatherland.
In 2006, the Republic of Armenia celebrated its 15th anniversary of independence.
Sources: Wikipedia History of Armenia
as the earliest known prehistoric culture in the area, carbon-dated to roughly 6000 - 4000 BC. However, a recently
discovered tomb has been dated to 9000 BC. Another early culture in the Armenian Highland and surrounding
areas—the Kura-Araxes culture—is assigned the period of ca. 4000 - 2200 BC, and is believed to have
subsequently developed into the Trialeti culture (ca. 2200 - 1500 BC). Armenians are one of the oldest Indo-
European subgroups. The original Armenian name for the country was Hayq, later Hayastan, translated as the land of
Haik, and consisting of the name Haik and the Iranian suffix '-stan' (land). According to legend, Haik was a great-
great-grandson of Noah (son of Togarmah, who was a son of Gomer, a son of Noah's son, Yafet), and according to
tradition, a forefather of all Armenians. Mount Ararat, a sacred mountain for the Armenian people, rising in the center
of the Armenian Highland as its highest peak, is traditionally considered the landing place of Noah's Ark. Between
1500 - 1200 BC, the Hayasa-Azzi existed in the western half of the Armenian Highland, often clashing with the
Hittite Empire. Between 1200 - 800 BC, much of Armenia was united under a confederation of kingdoms, which
Assyrian sources called Nairi ("Land of Rivers" in Assyrian"). The Egyptians used Nairi for Mitanni, referring to the
"Land of Rivers". Nairi was later absorbed into the kingdom of Urartu. The Kingdom of Urartu flourished in the
Caucasus and eastern Asia Minor between the 9th century BC and 585 BC in the Armenian Highland when the first
Armenian Empire was forged. After the fall of Urartu around 585 BC, the Kingdom of Armenia was ruled by the
Armenian Orontid Dynasty, which governed the state in 585 - 190 BC. Under Orontids, Armenia at times was an
independent kingdom, and at other times a satrapy of the Persian Empire. After the destruction of the Seleucid
Empire, a Hellenistic Greek successor state of Alexander the Great's short-lived empire, a Hellenistic Armenian state
was founded in 190 BC, with Artaxias becoming its first kings and the founder of the Artaxiad dynasty (190 BC - 1
AD). Under Nero, the Romans fought a campaign (55–63) against the Parthian Empire, which had invaded the
kingdom of Armenia, allied to the Romans. In 301, Armenia became the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state
religion. It established a church that still exists independently of both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox
churches, having become so in 451 after having rejected the Council of Chalcedon. In 591, the great Byzantine
warrior and Emperor Maurice defeated the Persians and recovered much of the remaining territory of Armenia into
the empire. The conquest was completed by the Emperor Heraclius in 629. Evolving as a feudal kingdom in the 9th
century, the Bagratuni Dynasty led Armenia on a brief cultural, political, and economic renewal. The Seljuk Turks
under Alp Arslan in turn took the city in 1064. In 1071, after the defeat of the Byzantine forces by the Seljuk Turks
at the Battle of Manzikert, the Turks captured the rest of Greater Armenia and much of Anatolia. So ended Christian
leadership of Armenia for the next millennium with the exception of a period of the late 12th-early 13th centuries. To
escape death or servitude at the hands of those who had assassinated his relative, Gagik II, King of Ani, an
Armenian named Roupen with some of his countrymen went into the gorges of the Taurus Mountains and then into
Tarsus of Cilicia. Here the Byzantine governor of the place gave them shelter. Thus, from around 1080 to 1375, the
focus of Armenian nationalism moved south, as the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. After the members of the first
Crusade appeared in Asia Minor, the Armenians developed close ties to European Crusader States, flourished in
southeastern Asia Minor until it was conquered by Muslim states.The failed Third Crusade and other events
elsewhere left Cilicia as the sole substantial Christian presence in the Middle East. Armenian sovereignty lasted till
1375, when the Mamelukes of Egypt profited from the unstable situation of Lesser Armenia and destroyed it.
Mehmed II conquered Constantinople from the Byzantines in 1453, and made it the Ottoman Empire's capital.
Mehmed and his successors used the religious systems of their subject nationalities as a method of population
control, and so Ottoman Sultans invited an Armenian archbishop to establish an Armenian patriarchate in
Constantinople. The Armenians of Constantinople grew in numbers, and became respected, if not full, members of
Ottoman society. In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian War, 1826-1828, the parts of historic Armenia under
Persian control, centering on Yerevan and Lake Sevan, were incorporated into Russia. Under Russian rule, the area
corresponding approximately to modern-day Armenian territory was called "Province of Yerevan". The Armenian
national liberation movement was the Armenian effort to free the historic Armenian homeland of eastern Asia Minor
and Transcaucasus from Russian and Ottoman domination and re-establish the independent Armenian state. In 1839,
the situation of the Ottoman Armenians slightly improved after Abdul Mejid I carried out reforms in its territories.
However, later Sultans, such as Abdul Hamid II stopped the reforms and carried out massacres, now known as the
Hamidian massacres of 1895-96. In 1915, the Ottoman Empire systematically carried out the Armenian Genocide,
during which 1.5 million Armenians perished. The ethnic cleansing of Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman
Empire is a genocide, with one wave of massacres in the years 1894 to 1896 culminating in the events of the
Armenian Genocide in 1915 -1923. With World War I in progress, the Ottoman Turks accused the (Christian)
Armenians as liable to ally with Imperial Russia, and used it as a pretext to deal with the entire Armenian population
as an enemy within their empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the takeover of the Bolsheviks, Stepan
Shaumyan was placed in charge of Armenia. In 1922, Armenia became part of the Soviet Union as one of three
republics comprising the Transcaucasian SFSR. The Transcaucasian SFSR was dissolved in 1936 and as a result
Armenia became a constituent republic of the Soviet Union as the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Soviet
Armenia participated in World War II by sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the frontline in order to
defend the "Soviet motherland." On February 20, 1988, interethnic fighting between the ethnic Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijanis broke out shortly after the parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh, an autonomous
oblast in Azerbaijan, voted to unify the region with Armenia. Armenia declared its sovereignty over the Soviet Union
on August 23, 1990. In the wake of the August Coup, a referendum was held on the question of secession.
Following an overwhelming vote in favor, full independence was declared on September 21, 1991. However,
widespread recognition did not occur until the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. After
Robert Kocharian came to power in 1998, the difficult life conditions of Armenia gradually started to change. The
Armenian diaspora, and especially the ARF, obtained more freedom to carry out economic projects in the fatherland.
In 2006, the Republic of Armenia celebrated its 15th anniversary of independence.
Sources: Wikipedia History of Armenia
Click on map for larger view
Click on flag for Country Report
| TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS |
None reported.
