VZCZCXRO8143
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHYE #0758/01 2661044
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 221044Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
INFO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8034
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000758 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INL/AAE JUDITH CAMPBELL 
DOJ FOR CARL ALEXANDRE AND DOJ/OPDAT, 
CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN, CATHERINE NEWCOMBE, AND DOJ/USDOJ, AND BRUCE 
SWARTZ AND CRIM/AAG 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KDEM KJUS AM
SUBJECT: DOJ HOLDS CRIMINAL LAW SEMINAR FOR ARMENIAN JUDGES 
 
YEREVAN 00000758  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
(U) Sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Overseas 
Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) held a 
seminar on "Rules of Evidence in Adversarial Proceedings" on 
September 13-14, 2008, in Armenia.  The conference was attended by 
Armenian judges, judicial candidates and officials of the Armenian 
Judicial School as well as two U.S. federal judges. The seminar 
reviewed Armenian jurisprudence and practices, comparing them to the 
American experience and the requirements of the European Convention 
on Human Rights.  The training covered evidentiary issues, the uses 
of case law, plea bargaining and cooperation agreements, and the 
judicial exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, among other 
topics. END SUMMARY 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
ARMENIAN JUDICIARY FACING CHALLENGES ON MANY FRONTS 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Armenian judiciary faces numerous challenges as it 
attempts to create a jurisprudence that has strong roots in its 
Soviet history while adopting western-style adversarial procedures 
that conform to the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, 
the Armenian judiciary faces difficult institutional problems as the 
executive branch and the Armenian Procuracy exert great control over 
Armenian judges, thereby undermining their independence and 
integrity. Furthermore, the judiciary is held in very low esteem by 
the public, with the widespread belief that many judges are 
corrupt. 
 
------------------------- 
USDOJ / OPDAT PLUNGES IN 
------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Given this setting, USDOJ/ OPDAT developed a training 
program for judges and judicial candidates that would introduce them 
to American jurisprudence and probe them on the development of their 
own practices. The INL-funded program held the first of a series of 
judge-only seminars on September 13-14 at Tsakhadzor, Armenia. 
Twenty-nine judges, judicial candidates, and officials of the 
Armenian Judicial School were in attendance. The American trainers 
for the session were U.S. District Court Judges Philip Pro (Nevada) 
and David O. Carter (Central District of California), and USDOJ 
Resident Legal Advisor Steven Kessler. 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) One of the most critical issues facing the Armenian 
judiciary is the role of the police within the adversarial system. 
At present, Armenian police officers only testify at trial if they 
are called as actual crime witnesses or crime victims. Police 
officers who investigate cases, find evidence at crime scenes, or 
take confessions from defendants are not called to testify. Instead, 
their official reports are read into the record at trial and there 
is no effective way for the defense to challenge their findings, 
because the police officers are prohibited by statute from 
testifying. In the USDOJ/ OPDAT seminar, the Americans raised this 
issue, asking whether it was fair to the defendant and whether that 
lack of trial confrontation comported with the European Convention 
on Human Rights. (Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe and 
has ratified the European Convention of Human Rights).  The American 
trainers also asked the Armenian judges what should be their 
responsibility in cases where they suspect police evidence is 
unreliable or mendacious. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The seminar also focused on how case law should be 
developed in Armenian jurisprudence. The American judges shared 
numerous examples of how American judicial independence was 
strengthened when U.S. courts established judicial rules in a 
legislative vacuum. In Armenia the Cassation Court has recently 
acquired case-law authority, but they have been unable, as yet, to 
provide direction to the lower courts through their decisions. The 
use of case law is very much a novelty for Armenians as they have 
been educated and trained in civil case law as developed in 
continental Europe. 
 
¶6. (SBU) A third significant issue covered by the seminar was the 
use of plea bargaining and cooperation agreements. Armenia has a 
form of plea bargaining called "expedited proceedings." However this 
new procedure has many faults at present. For example, there is no 
 
YEREVAN 00000758  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
possibility for an Armenian defendant to plead guilty as part of a 
cooperation agreement that would include a delay in his sentencing 
during the pendency of his cooperation. OPDAT's Residential Legal 
Advisor explained the US practice to the Armenian judges, providing 
examples of how organized crime can be infiltrated using cooperating 
informants. At the training the American judges demonstrated a 
typical guilty plea allocution, which was far more detailed than the 
procedures used by Armenian judges. Although Armenia does not, at 
present, need plea bargaining for efficiency purposes (since their 
caseload is significantly below US standards), plea bargaining, 
cooperation agreements, and higher sentences for defendants would 
greatly increase the capacity of law enforcement to fight corruption 
and organized crime.  Many Armenians remain skeptical of such 
procedures, as they feel it would lead to unlimited prosecutorial 
discretion, with resulting corruption; others are concerned that 
cooperation agreements are somehow unfair or unsound as a mechanism 
for greater law enforcement. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) The USDOJ/OPDAT training succeeded in introducing Armenian 
judges to American practices as a means to examine and reform their 
own procedures. The training also provided a focused professional 
environment in which Armenian appellate judges, criminal trial 
judges, judicial candidates, and American practitioners could 
discuss practical pressing issues.  Armenian judicial practitioners 
will need to reform their practices and develop a strong judiciary 
if they are to confront and overcome organized crime, international 
financial crime, and corruption. 
 
 
YOVANOVITCH