“There are no work spaces; police officers sit in the corridors in Nubarashen – they have no eating locations, means of modern communication and security,” says Arman Danielyan. The main complaint of the employees was about low salaries, although they are high as compared with the other areas.

Today the group of observers has presented an annual report that contains, apart from the observations, about 350 offers on solving general issues, as well as problems of specific institutions.

“Instead of internists, other specialists work in those institutions. For example, an anesthesiologist that is not needed much in such institutions,” Arman Danielyan says.

The medicines are obtained based on a centralized system, which means that a doctor should order all the medicines he thinks he will need one year ahead. If a new medicine is needed, a special bid should be made, which is often a very long process.

There is a special list defining the list of items in parcels that relatives can give to the convicts. But there are items that are completely left out of this list, for example – computers.

In the report, there are particular provisions on various problems related to CEIs – building conditions, bad treatment, visits, medical treatment, communication with the external world, etc.

In general, observers state that the Armenian criminal/executive institutions are overcrowded. Erebuni, Nubarashen, Vardashen CEIs have the most number of “inhabitants.” For example, there are from 10 to 13 imprisoned persons in wards designed for 8 people.

One of the reasons is the mandatory application of detention as a precautionary measure, even in cases when there is no need to detain a person.

On the other hand, detention as a sanction is rarely being applied, as a result of which, in 2008, there were only 19 convicts kept in Hrazdan CEI with a capacity of 200 people, specifically designed for this sanction.

Another reason for CEIs being overcrowded is the decrease of the number of earlier-discharged prisoners. The corresponding commission turns down 90 percent of the list submitted by the institution management, without substantiating their decisions. The group of observers considers such working style of the commission to be subjective and ungrounded.