FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF VOSKERCHYAN v. ARMENIA
\n(Application no. 28739\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 October 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment isfinal but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Voskerchyan v. Armenia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Kristina Pardalos, President, Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 28739\/09) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by an Armenian national, Mr GrigorVoskerchyan (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 17 September 2009.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr M.Shushanyan,a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The Armenian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 February 2013 the complaint about the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant\u2019s detention was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Yerevan.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by daily protest rallies held at Yerevan\u2019s Freedom Square from 20 February onwards by the supporters of the main opposition candidate, Mr Ter-Petrosyan. The applicant was the head of Mr\u00a0Ter\u2011Petrosyan\u2019s election headquarters in the town of Abovyan and regularly attended the rallies. On 1 March 2008 the assembly at Freedom Square was dispersed by the police, causing mass protests throughout Yerevan.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 March 2008 the applicant was summoned to a local police station in Abovyan where he was questioned about the leaflets that he had prepared and distributed among the demonstrators during the rallies.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 March 2008 the applicant was charged with organising mass disorder and an attempt to usurp State power.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (the District Court) ordered the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention for a period of two months, namely until 8 May 2008, taking into account the nature and the gravity of the imputed offence and the severity of the punishment prescribed for it. By the same decision the District Court refused the applicant\u2019s request to be released on bail.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the investigating authority had not presented any evidence to substantiate the need for his detention.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the applicant\u2019s appeal, holding that the fact that the applicant had been accused of a grave offence punishable by up to ten years\u2019 imprisonment increased the probability of his evading criminal punishment. Furthermore, it was unacceptable to release the applicant on bail in view of the fact that, if at large, the applicant could abscond, obstruct the proceedings, commit another offence, evade responsibility and punishment, and continue to breach public order. As to the applicant\u2019s good character, mentioned by him in his appeal, this was not sufficient to justify lifting the detention order.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 May, 2 July, 3 September and 30 October 2008 the District Court extended the applicant\u2019s detention on the same grounds, on each occasion by two months.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 May, 18 July, 19 September and 16 November 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeals against those decisions.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 December 2008 the trial court decided to set the case down for trial, ruling in the same decision that the applicant\u2019s detention was to remain unchanged.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 June 2009 the District Court found the applicant guilty of makingpublic calls inciting a violent overthrow of the government, and imposed a two-year sentence. It further decided to absolve the applicant from serving his sentence under a general amnesty declared by the Armenian parliament on 19 June 2009. The applicant was immediately released from detention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions see the judgment in the case of Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 629\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 30-32, 20\u00a0October 2016).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention. He relied on Article 5\u00a0\u00a7 3 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nKsenijaTurkovi\u0107,
\nTim Eicke, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n