Your trusted source

The pilot program on the introduction of Probation Service officially beganj in Armenia on June 17. Pastinfo new agency talked with program advisers, international experts Chris Frost, Ioan Durnesku, Andy Bernhardt and program coordinator Hayk Khemchyan.

Q: Although the pilot program of probation service was officially launched on June 17, such a structure is not yet stipulated by Armenian legislation. To what extent does the absence of a lesiglative field hinder establishing the new body?

Chris Frost: No doubt, the legislative field is essential, but I think the pilot programs launched will do something in this sense, but this will certainly take enthusiasm of employees and involved persons. If we consider experience of Western and Eastern European countries, the problem is that judges can see a risk in whether to administer punishment or send the offender to Probation Service. It is especially hard for judges to request such a decision as they need to have a bit broader outlook and inflict community punishments.

Ioan Durnesku: What is taking place in many countries is that the probation service should focus more on rehabilitation, which is quite hard as it requires overcoming a punitive mentality and focusing on rehabilitation issues of the offender.

Andy Bernhardt: In addition to judges and probation officers, the problem concerns the public in general. It is important to duly inform the public of probation since politicians will be unwilling to support the idea if the public does not support it. The public should see and understand what a community service is – when a team comes and works to do something good.

Q: The Probation Service in Armenia was set up on the basis of the Division for Implementation of Alternative Sanctions. Are there any concerns that it will remain as an adjunct body of that body?

Chris Frost: There is much experience in working with offenders in Alternative Service, but there is also concern that what was done in recent years was quite correct so there is no need to change. But that change is necessary and requires caution because if that change is undertaken properly, we will have probation officers capable of establishing an effective service.

Ioan Durnesku: I think it is an appropriate practice – to start from something already in existence. It already took place in several countries, including Moldova. It is necessary to start from an existing body and develop it into a structure that will correspond with requirements and needs of Armenian society. I think these services need to be separate as they have their own philosophy and mentality, but it is up to Armenia to choose the most appropriate option.

Q: What corruption risks may a probation service involve?

Andy Bernhardt: I think that if there is a corruption risk in the probation service, it needs to be removed rapidly. There should be no corruption risks in such organizations, but sometimes they exist and must be removed urgently.

Ioan Durnesku: The probation service is not in a vacuum. It is part of society, and if there is corruption in a society, it is likely to sneak into the probation service as well. But there are certain mechanisms for controlling it, such as income declarations of probation officers, etc.

Andy Bernhardt: Another important circumstance, in addition to corruption, is that there should be confidence in the probation service. For example, in the UK there was no trust between police, the penitentiary service , and probation. They viewed each other as an enemy and were often at odds. They eventually sat down to talks and decided to work better by encouraging trust in each other.

Q: One important component of activities of the probation service includes filing a report on the offender to court. In Armenia it will not be mandatory and will be left to the discretion of the body that carries out proceedings. Is it possible that the body carrying out proceedings will not request such a report?

Andy Bernhardt: We are again returning to the issue of trust. In the UK judges used to think that they, the judges, do not need it, but after getting more information about the offender, they began to see a more complete picture: their family, their social status and the system started working better.

Hayk Khemchyan: Everyone raised concerns at that time: why should a probation officer or anyone else advise a judge on how to act. But over time we along with our international partners came to the conclusion that the probation service aims to help take a correct decision. True, I would not say that all judges hold that opinion now, but many of them believe that it may really help take a decision on an objective punishment. The attitude has changed considerably. I certainly do not rule out corruption risks, but given the fact that conclusions or reports to be submitted to a judge will not be binding and the decision will rest with the judge, corruption risks decline a bit here. But, of course, I don’t want to rule out it. I would also like to note that the requirement for reports, at least about minors, is going to be mandatory at the moment.