The Armenian authorities have initiated amendments to the Criminal Code and the Penitentiary Code related to the parole process. According to officials, the main goal of the proposed legislative changes is to adapt the current system to existing realities and to the political and legal reforms implemented in recent years.
Presenting the proposed reforms, Tsoghik Aleksanyan, head of the Department of Social, Psychological, and Legal Affairs of the Penitentiary Service’s central body, stated that the existing legal regulations no longer fully correspond to the current situation and recent reforms.
According to her, the proposed amendments are divided into two main categories: substantive and procedural.
Changes to court evaluation criteria
One of the key substantive changes concerns the criteria courts use when deciding on parole.
Under the current system, courts evaluate two main factors: the likelihood of reoffending and the inmate’s proper behavior.
The proposed amendment would mean that compensation for damages caused by the crime or repayment of civil claims would no longer be treated as a criterion related to the risk of a new offense. Instead, these factors would be considered part of the inmate’s overall behavior assessment.
According to Aleksanyan, the current approach does not adequately take into account the objective conditions faced by inmates in penitentiary institutions.
“While being held in penitentiary institutions and facing spatial and other restrictions, inmates often do not have a real opportunity to obtain work that would allow them to compensate for the damage caused,” she stated.
She argued that the proposed approach does not contradict the principle of social justice.
On the contrary, if a court grants parole, the individual would have greater opportunities while free and under probation supervision to work and repay civil claims.
“The court may impose an obligation on the individual to repay the civil claim within a fixed period. While free, that person will have greater opportunities to find work and secure sufficient income,” Aleksanyan emphasized.
Strengths and weaknesses of the reform
The logic of the reform is that the state is effectively acknowledging that inmates in Armenian penitentiary institutions do not have real opportunities to earn money to compensate for damages.
Under such conditions, linking parole directly to repayment of civil claims may turn into “a mechanism of release available only to financially secure inmates.”
One of the strengths of the initiative is the shift in emphasis from formal payments toward evaluation of behavior and the risk of recidivism. This approach is closer to the idea of rehabilitation and reintegration.
In addition, the argument that individuals have more opportunities to work and provide compensation while free appears rational.
However, the reform also has weaknesses.
First, there is a risk of weakening the position of victims. For victims of crimes, compensation is one of the key elements of justice. If inmates are released without paying damages, part of society may view this as a reduction of accountability for crimes committed.
Second, much will depend on the quality of the probation service. The draft law effectively shifts oversight of payments and behavior to the post-release period. If the probation system is overloaded or weak in enforcing obligations, the mechanism may function only formally.
Third, the reform creates broader room for judicial subjectivity. Previously, the existence or absence of payments was a relatively clear criterion. Courts will now have to interpret the concept of “proper behavior” more broadly, increasing the risk of inconsistent practices and potential corruption risks.
There is also a political and social aspect. The reform indirectly acknowledges that the state has failed to create enough jobs and a functioning economic model for inmate labor within the penitentiary system.
In other words, the issue is being addressed not inside the system itself but through easing release criteria.
Nevertheless, the general concept is not unusual in modern criminal policy. Similar mechanisms operate in many countries.
The main question is how effectively Armenia will be able to ensure post-release supervision and protect the interests of victims.