Octopus Cybercrime Community

Armenia has initiated comprehensive reform of its criminal procedure legislation several years ago (the start of formal process dating back to 2009). Armenia has adopted new Criminal Code (Armenian) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Armenian) in summer 2021, which came into force on January 2022.

In terms of substantive law, the 2003 Criminal Code of Armenia contains elements of all substantive law offences provided by the Budapest Convention (BC):

• Articles 2-6 of the BC (c-i-a offences) are fully implemented;
• General definitions of forgery and fraud are also provided, however with no specific computer data elements referenced (corresponding Articles 7-8 BC);
• There is a lack of necessary definitions of child pornography offences (Art. 9 BC);
• General provision is also used for Intellectual Property Rights offences (Art. 10 BC);
• Criminal Procedure Code also contains concepts of attempt, aiding and abetting implemented (Art. 11 BC).

No corporate liability provisions are included (Art. 12 BCC).

The 1998 Criminal Procedure Code does not implement procedural powers in compliance with the Budapest Convention.

The notions of electronic evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings, as well as important definitions of subscriber information, traffic data and content data, as required by the Convention, are not implemented as a part of general definitions of the criminal procedure or related legislation.

Armenia so far has not implemented provisions on expedited preservation of stored computer data (Article 16 BC) and expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data (Article 17 BC) 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.

There are also no specific provisions in domestic legislation with the scope and purpose corresponding to Article 18 of BC (production orders). Instead, it is argued that search and seizure is the default measure used to obtain stored computer data in a person’s possession or control.

In terms of search and seizure of stored computer data (Article 19 of BC), there are no provisions in the procedural legislation which would provide for a specific, computer-related search and seizure measures. Therefore, traditional powers of search and seizure of tangible objects are used to give effect to Article 19. A general requirement justifying application of the search measure is that there are “sufficient grounds 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” (Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 225); the term “document” is interpreted broadly enough to cover computer data. From the formal viewpoint, search is executed based on a court order (Article 225, par. 3).

Implementation of special provisions in the context of search and seizure provided by Article 19 of BC (search of a connected system; making and retaining a copy of those computer data; maintaining the integrity of the relevant stored computer data; rendering inaccessible or removing those computer data in the accessed computer system) is not found in the procedural legislation of Armenia.

In Armenian legislation, no distinction is made between the real-time collection of traffic data and interception of content data (Articles 20, 21 of BC). The same set of legal rules, conditions and safeguards is used in relation to both measures. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 239, 241) provides for general legal conditions for the execution of these measures, while the Law on Operative-Detective Activity (2007) defines, in its Article 26, general measure of wiretapping, also applicable to computer data. Under this Article, it is possible to collect certain categories of data which qualify as traffic data in the terms of Convention using general wiretapping procedure.

In terms of horizontally applicable conditions and safeguards (Article 15 of BC), most of the elements limiting and controlling the application of more intrusive measures (search and seizure, real-time collection of traffic data and content interception) are present - such as existence of criminal investigation, judicial order, limitation as to gravity of offences and other conditions.

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 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 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.

Legislation and regulations

Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia (2003) (unofficial translation)

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia (1998, amended 2016) (unofficial translation)

Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia (06 Jan. 2022) (Armenian)

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia (2021) (Armenian)

Law on operative-search activities (2007)

Law on Population Protection in Emergency Situations (1998) (unofficial translation)

Law on personal Data Protection (2015)

• The Division for Combating High-Tech Crime under the General Department of Criminal Police of the Republic of Armenia, processes requests for police-to-police cooperation under the Budapest Convention and the G7 networks on 24/7 contact points. It processes only operative and intelligence information (cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings) and does not receive and process mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests. Information received through the 24/7 point of contact is forwarded to competent investigative authorities; if the specific investigative action is required, referral is done through the Prosecutor’s Office. Technical assistance and support and advice can be provided by the 24/7 point of contact.
• If the request requires investigative actions, it is sent back with indication that an MLA process is required; while where request generally concerns content data, then, irrespective of the nature of request, it is refused with an indication that other channels must be used.
• At the stage of pre-trial investigation, the competent authority for MLA is the Department for International Legal Cooperation at the Prosecutor General’s Office. Prerequisite for request at this stage is the Red Notice / Diffusion Notice (circulated by Interpol). Reciprocity is also a prerequisite – written confirmation from the requesting state is necessary.
• At the trial stage, the Ministry of Justice (Department for International Legal Cooperation) oversees the MLA process. A prerequisite for the request is the Red Notice by Interpol / Diffusion Notice (attached to request). Request according to the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 should be supported by documents noted in Article 12 of BC. In general, an indication of clear legal basis for the request is necessary; otherwise, reciprocity is a prerequisite – in the form of express written assurance of reciprocity from the requesting State.
• In the absence of treaties and based on reciprocity, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Consular Department) is the channel through which the request is received. The Ministry of Justice is the consenting body for reciprocity. The request must include assurances of reciprocity. Only the official written request needs to go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• For outgoing requests, at the pre-trial stage the General Prosecutor’s Office receives communications from investigative agencies and, if there is no specific treaty basis to continue otherwise, the request is translated and sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for processing via diplomatic channels. The process is the same for trial stage and is performed via the Ministry of Justice.