The following article discusses international child abduction relationships in the context of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter referred to as the Convention, which entered into force for the Republic of Armenia on 1 June 2007) and the mechanisms for exercising Conventional rights in domestic courts.

The Convention seeks to combat parental child abduction by providing a system of co-operation between Central Authorities and a rapid procedure for the return of the child to the country of the child’s habitual residence. For this purpose, Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention and use the most expeditious procedures available.

Although the Convention uses the term “abduction”, it does not have the same meaning as in criminal law, as the Convention applies only to the civil rights of international child abduction; the terms used in it have their own meaning. It follows from the meaning of Articles 3 and 12 of the Convention that the term “abduction” includes cases of wrongful removal or retention of a child from one Contracting state to another and according to the Article 3 of the Convention the removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where -

1. a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution, or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
   b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The Convention applies to children from the moment of their birth until they reach the age of 18 years.

The Convention also defines the bodies which are authorized to deal with cases of wrongful removal or the retention of a child such as a Central Authority, the judicial or administrative authorities. Article 7 provides that Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of the Convention.

By the N 952-N decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia from 20 August 2009 the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia was designated as a Central Authority. 

The administrative authorities are the bodies defined by the contracting parties for ensuring fulfillment of the obligations under the Convention. The administrative body cannot coincide with the Central body, as the Convention clearly separates the powers of those bodies.

To implement the objectives of the Convention by domestic law, the RA Civil Procedure Code from February 9, 2018 provides for a new type of special proceedings – cases on return of children wrongfully removed to and retained in the Republic of Armenia.

According to the Article 204 (1) of the RA Civil Procedure Code, a request for the return of a child wrongfully removed to and retained in the Republic of Armenia shall be filed by the central body specified by the Government within the scope of the Convention.

The court resolves the acceptance of the application of the Central Body immediately, no later than the next day of its submission. At the same time the court forbids the defendant to change the place of residence of the child before the decision enters into force. The court examines the case without court hearings and makes a decision within ten days after the deadline for submitting a response to the lawsuit.

The judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that – 

1. a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or 
2. b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.

In the context of the issue under discussion, it should be noted that the Convention provides that any other State may accede to it, however, it has legal force only in relations between the contracting states which declare their consent to the accession of the other party (see the list with the following link). Moreover, the application of the Conventional mechanisms does not limit the possibility to apply other procedures.