Over the last 20 years, Armenia experienced obvious regression in the fields of democracy and human rights even after joining the Council of Europe in January 2001, legislative amendments were made, including the constitutional amendments made in 2005 and 2015. Elections at the national and local levels were neither free nor fair. People were persecuted for their political views, political opposition activity and civil actions. The freedom of speech and pluralism were restricted. Journalists were subjected to violence when doing their jobs. Torture was of a continuous nature in police stations, penitentiary institutions and the armed forces. Human rights violations were of a sustained and systemic nature. Officials and representatives of law enforcement agencies were not brought to liability for these violations, as no effective investigations were conducted.

One should note the scope of the spread of corruption, which international and local experts assessed as a threat to national security. The principles of equality before the law and the rule of law no longer worked in Armenia; impunity dominated. The judiciary was fully subject to executive power, and justice was selective in nature. The participatory process in the field of government was an imitation only of real democracy. Due to the authorities having monopolised the economy, political parties, being deprived of a social base, had become a constituent part of the political system ruled by the Republican Party.

Civil society and its institutions, working on issues such as fundamental human rights, the fight against

corruption and the freedoms of assembly and expression, were able to develop their capacities and skills in the fields of documenting and publicising human rights violations, corruption and economic crimes, carrying out strategic litigation, advocacy and monitoring the performance of international obligations by the authorities. Short- term civil protests and long-term social movements mobilised in connection with various issues, including environmental issues, such as initiatives against the exploitation of the copper mine in Teghut and the construction of a hydroelectric power station at the top of Trchkan Waterfall; issues related to human rights violations in the armed forces, including initiatives known as the Army in Reality and Women in Black, Armenia, and in penitentiary institutions; and issues related to human rights violations against women – including domestic violence – and LGBT people, to name but a few.

From election to election, civil society organizations performed observation missions more and more professionally. The data obtained and the reports compiled enjoyed the attention of international observer missions and were perceived by them as unbiased, objective and well-grounded in data. Within civil society, cooperation between different institutions developed through unions, coalitions, joint monitoring and reports. Civil society was active on international platforms as well, including those offered by the United Nations (UN), Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and European Union (EU), by presenting shadow reports and statements, and submitting applications to the European Court of Human Rights and human rights institutions of the UN, including the Committee against Torture and Human Rights Committee.

The activity of civil society institutes was targeted by the authorities and media as instructed by the former. They represented those institutes as foreign agents, grant-eaters, traitors, anti-national elements, and this representation was manifested not only in words but also by threats, criminal prosecutions and imprisonment, albeit short-term. This means that the authorities did not welcome the activity of civil society. The authorities made consistent efforts to maintain control over civil society or as a counterbalance, fake non-governmental organizations (GONGOs) were established in an effort to reduce the role and impact of independent NGOs, cast doubt on the objectiveness of their assessments by fake observers, lawyers and human rights defenders. As a result, a barrier sometimes emerged between non-governmental organizations and civil initiatives.

It should be noted that civil society has expressed its stance with regard to every nationwide event, every blatant human rights violation through announcements, public discussions, reports, initiations of court proceedings. Through the efforts of civil society institutes, the seeming immunity of state institutes was abolished from public perceptions. For example, the Ministry of Defense, which was, for a long time, considered an inscrutable, inviolable body, especially in the context of Karabagh conflict, was obliged to come out of the entirely closed regime situation and take public opinion into consideration due to public complaints, initiatives claiming institution of criminal proceedings on death cases in the armed forces, additional data obtained through judicial protection and especially under the pressure of presenting all this in international instances.

As mentioned above, the participation of civil society institutes in the decisions made by the authorities was of formal nature. Nevertheless, even in the condition of that negligent attitude, civil society used the limited platforms of dialogue to present their stance and to make public aware, at the same time showing, in each case, the conscious inaction or corrupt interest of the government.

OSCE Civic Solidarity Platform, EU Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forums, protection mechanisms of human rights defenders had an important role for the activity of Armenian civil society. It should be mentioned that the attitude of international structures towards the assessments made by Armenian civil society institutes did not always have a desirable nature. International structures often treated the assessments, information or reports by civil society based on the agreements with the current authorities or political expediency. Of course, international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Transparency International, Freedom House and others were an exception and often the only means to present the situation of human rights in the RA on international platforms.

Thus, the Velvet Revolution was preceded by the active work of civil society and numerous civil initiatives in unfavourable conditions. Despite being subjected to, to put it mildly, the disobliging attitude of the authorities, civil society still managed to present objective information to the public along with examples of fight and cooperation and opportunities for change. Through continuously involving society in its activity and through educational programmes, civil society contributed to raising the awareness of society and encouraging a demanding stance. It is noteworthy that active figures in CSOs and citizens who have a connection with those organisations and their initiatives were at the forefront of the 2018 people’s movement.

For years, human rights institutions also provided institutional support for the civil fight going on in Armenia by defending citizens involved in that fight in police stations and judicial cases and providing legal help in other cases. In April, that support was more coordinated: through a joint hotline, a number of human rights organisations provided legal advice to the movement’s participants and carried out rapid response activities.

After the Velvet Revolution, a wide field of activity has been created for civil society to realise the suggestions made over the years and act to improve the human rights situation in different spheres in Armenia, to protect rights, increase the level of accountability of the authorities and the transparency of their actions, and decrease corruption risks. We are, therefore, in the process of learning how to live and act in free conditions.