Information on Parties
Information for providers
on Parties to Budapest Convention
Partnership agreement with providers
On 23 November 2015 the Investigative Committee signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Armenian Internet service providers, such as ArmenTel, K-Telecom, UCom, Orange Armenia, with the intention of reducing workload and saving human resources. The main goals of the Memorandum are to undertake effective joint measures in the direction of operative transmission of court decisions and transcripts, and to develop mutual cooperation on introduction of technical capabilities. Within this framework, parties agreed to communicate in a standardized manner (including cover letters, electronic signatures) and agreed to cooperate in solving issues as soon as possible in case of such procedures. Furthermore, the providers agreed to process electronic transmissions from the Investigative Committee within a short period of time and also to execute expeditiously court decisions which are designated as “urgent”. A second objective of the Memorandum is to ensure that Internet Access Providers retain traffic data of their users for a set period of time.
Powers to request information
Production order
In the sense of Article 18 of the Budapest Convention
Competent authority
General remarks
There are no specific provisions in domestic legislation with the scope and purpose corresponding to Article 18 Budapest Convention (production orders). Instead, search and seizure is the default measure used to obtain stored computer data in a person’s possession or control.
The court order is necessary to undertake the search and seizure, based on Articles 41 and 225(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia, on the motion of the investigator of the Investigative Committee.
Basis in law
Article 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia, “Grounds for conducting search”, specifies that the search can be conducted if there is “sufficient ground to suspect that in some premises or in some other place or in possession of some person, there are instruments of crime, articles and valuables acquired by criminal way, as well as other items or documents, which can be significant for the case”. The term “document” is interpreted broadly in practice to cover computer data.
If different for subscriber information
Armenian legislation does not distinguish between the different categories of data (subscriber, traffic and content) and thus enforces no functional differences in their treatment.
If different for traffic data
Armenian legislation does not distinguish between the different categories of data (subscriber, traffic and content) and thus enforces no functional differences in their treatment.
Form
N/A
Preservation order
In the sense of Articles 16 and 17 of the Budapest Convention
Competent authority
General remarks:
Armenia has not implemented provisions on expedited preservation of stored computer data (Article 16 Budapest Convention) and expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data (Article 17) as standalone measures in its procedural legislation. In the context of compliance with international requests for preservation received and processed by the authorities, search and seizure is the option used as an alternative.
The court order is necessary to undertake the search and seizure, based on Articles 41 and 225(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia, on the motion of the investigator of the Investigative Committee.
Basis in law
Article 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia, “Grounds for conducting search”, specifies that the search can be conducted if there is “sufficient ground to suspect that in some premises or in some other place or in possession of some person, there are instruments of crime, articles and valuables acquired by criminal way, as well as other items or documents, which can be significant for the case”. The term “document” is interpreted broadly in practice to cover computer data.
If different for subscriber information
Armenian legislation does not distinguish between the different categories of data (subscriber, traffic and content) and thus enforces no functional differences in their treatment.
If different for traffic data
Armenian legislation does not distinguish between the different categories of data (subscriber, traffic and content) and thus enforces no functional differences in their treatment.
Form
N/A
Emergency situations
Definition of emergency situation
Definition is found in Article I of the “Law on Population Protection in Emergency Situations”:
Emergency situation - major accidents, dangerous natural phenomenon, technical, natural or ecological (natural protection) disasters, epidemic, epidemic of animals, widely spread infectious diseases of plants and agricultural cultured plants in a certain area or building situations created as a result of implementation of weapons which can lead to human losses, to significant harms to health and environment, to major material losses and to the breach of normal conditions during vital activities of people.
Obligation to cooperate
No special obligations to cooperate are reported.
Exception
No specific exceptions are provided to the general rule.
Confidentiality obligation
Obligation of secrecy
Chapter 23, “Maintenance of Confidentiality” in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia provides legal framework for protection of privacy and confidentiality in criminal proceedings. According to par. 2 of Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, “No information about personal or family life as well as about other personal data shall be gathered, preserved, used or disseminated while carrying out the court actions. Upon the order of the court as well as of the inquiry body, investigator, prosecutor, the participants of the investigation and other court proceedings shall not disclose any of the mentioned information for which they undersign.”
Non respect of the obligation of secrecy
Article 342 of Criminal Code of RA stipulates that divulging the data of inquiry or investigation without permission of the prosecutor, investigator or the person in charge of inquiry, is punished with a fine in the amount of 100-300 minimal salaries, or correctional labour for up to 2 years, or arrest for up to 1 month.
Exception
According to Article 342 of Criminal Code the exceptions are the permission of the prosecutor, investigator or the person in charge of inquiry to disclose the data.
Data protection agreements
European Union Member States/ Adequacy
No
Convention 108
No
Additional Protocol ETS 181 to Convention 108
No
Domestic legal framework on data protection
No
Remedies
No information provided
Safeguards
Please refer to section on “Powers to request information” for obligatory court authorization for preservation and production of data.
There powers apply in the context of criminal proceedings; therefore an open criminal investigation is a pre-requisite.
No limitation to the use of these powers in terms of seriousness of offences.
![Tools on Cybercrime & Electronic Evidence Empowering You!](/documents/61044403/0/visual-ID-HD.jpg/db87f2b7-4443-f5c7-7631-129ab0848fbb?t=1467104695000)
These profiles do not necessarily reflect official positions of the States covered or of the Council of Europe.