Raising issues in torture in comparison with Armenian law and international standards

Abstract

In my paper I will present how prohibition of torture is codified in different international conventions, such as the torture convention, Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, ICCPR and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case-law by different human rights courts and institutions, such as the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. This definition encompasses both physical and mental pain. It also notes that torture has a purpose, and does not allow torture for the sake of the torturer’s amusement. As well as, Amnesty International state that ‘torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain in any form by one person on another, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter’ (Klayman, 1978, p.482). Also, I will mention the definition of the torture, the differentiation between torture and degrading treatment according to international standards. I will cover the understanding of the torture in Armenian legislation, the differences between Armenian law and International standards. Then, I will cover the understanding of what is time limitation and in what cases it is applicable in our legislation. Moreover, I will introduce another issue which is granting pardon or amnesty in our legislation. I will bring parallels between national law and international law. According to Rome Statute of International Criminal Court also prohibits time limitation for crimes against humanity such as torture. I have done examinations of relevant ECHR cases to understand the problem more precisely. At the end I have done statistical research and then I take some interviews from current working people to understand their opinion. The reason why I chose this topic is that I think that in our legislation we should make legislative changes because there is a misconception according to our national law and international standards. Also, there should be discussion about the injured person’s opinion and give possibility of granting pardon/amnesty in cases when the injured person does not protest. The main purpose for giving the responsibility to injured person because as a whole the damage that caused to victim of torture could not be compensated. Some legislative problems should be discussed in this paper and some relevant solutions should have done for them taking into consideration international standards and national law. Solving the issue of misunderstanding will help us to overlap the situation and as a result of these actions, the vulnerable group of defendants will not bear the risk of the gap in the law.