The ECHR ruling of June 15, 2021 in the case "Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia" (complaint No. 13610/12).
In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Armenia.
The case is being appealed against the lack of grounds for authorizing the extension of the period of detention during the trial and for an indefinite period of time. The case involved a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of article 5 of the Convention.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was placed in custody and charged with attempted drug smuggling. The applicant's detention under the chosen preventive measure was extended several times, including the district court's rulings issued in October and December 2011. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against these decisions. He also argued that the statements contained in the said rulings regarding the applicant's guilt violated the presumption of innocence: this issue was reviewed and corrected by the Court of Appeal. In March 2012, District Court judge F. He issued a resolution on the appointment of a court hearing in a criminal case. The applicant remained in custody during the trial, and his application for release from custody was rejected in February 2013. In August 2013
of the year , the district court consisting of the sole presiding judge F. He found the applicant guilty of the charge against him and sentenced him to imprisonment.
LEGAL ISSUES
Regarding compliance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. As for the applicant's detention during the trial, the court's decision of March 2012 stated this in one sentence: the preventive measure chosen against the applicant should be left unchanged.
The absence of any grounds in court decisions to extend the period of detention of a person for a long period may not comply with the principle of protection from arbitrariness guaranteed by paragraph 1 of article 5 of the Convention. The European Court has already established on this basis a violation of the Convention in circumstances similar to those considered in the present case (see, for example, the Judgment of the European Court in the case of Nakhmanovich v. Russia (See: Judgment of the European Court in the case of Nakhmanovich v. the Russian Federation v. Russia) dated March 2, 2006, complaint No. 55669/00 // Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights. 2006. N 9); The Decision of the European Court in the case "Yeloyev v. Ukraine" (Yeloyev v. Ukraine) (See: The Decision of the European Court in the case "Yeloyev v. Ukraine" (Yeloyev v. Ukraine) of November 6, 2008, complaint N 17283/02); The decision of the European Court in the case "Nightingale and Zozulya v. Ukraine" (Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine) (.: Judgment of the European Court in the case "Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine" (Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine) dated November 27, 2008, complaints NN 40774/02 and 4048/03); and the Decision of the European Court in the case "Kharchenko v. Ukraine" (Kharchenko v. Ukraine) (See: The Decision of the European Court in the case "Kharchenko v. Ukraine" (Kharchenko v. Ukraine) dated February 10, 2011, complaint No. 40107/02)). As in the above-mentioned cases, in the present case, the district court, in its decision of March 2012, simply left unchanged the preventive measure in the form of detention applied to the applicant at the pre-trial stage, without citing any grounds and without setting a deadline for the applicant's detention. This situation left the applicant in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds and duration of his detention after that date. The court decision made later, in February 2013, on the applicant's request for release from custody did not contain any special grounds for the applicant's detention and, moreover, it was issued almost a year after the decision of March 2012. Consequently, it cannot be considered that it eliminated the shortcomings of the last mentioned resolution.
Apparently, such a situation was a common practice at the time under review, since the relevant norms of Armenian legislation explicitly required the courts to provide grounds and set dates for extending the period of detention of persons only for the period of preliminary investigation, and it is unclear whether these requirements were applied at the preparatory stage of the trial, as in the present case. In such circumstances, the resolution of March 2012 It did not provide the applicant with adequate protection from arbitrariness, which was an essential element of the "legality" of detention within the meaning of paragraph 1 of article 5 of the Convention, therefore, the applicant's detention from March 2012 to August 2013 did not meet the requirements of paragraph 1 of article 5 of the Convention.
RESOLUTION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of article 5 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
Regarding compliance with paragraph 5 of article 5 of the Convention. None of the Armenian authorities has established, directly or indirectly, a violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed by article 5 of the Convention. In this regard, the applicant had no right to claim compensation in accordance with the legislation of Armenia. Moreover, even assuming that the applicant would have had such grounds, the European Court has already established that the legislation of Armenia, before it was amended in 2014 and at the time of the events complained of, did not meet the requirements of paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention due to the lack of opportunity to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see the Ruling of the European Court in the case "Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia" (Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia) (See: Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case "Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia" (Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia) dated October 22, 2020, complaint No. 63106/12)).
Since then, changes have been made to Armenian legislation, according to which moral damage could be claimed as compensation for violations of convention rights, including violations of the right to freedom and personal integrity. However, it has not been demonstrated that the applicant would have been able to exercise the right to compensation for a violation of article 5 of the Convention after the European Court's Ruling in the present case.
RESOLUTION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of paragraph 5 of article 5 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
Regarding compliance with article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The applicant claimed that the District Court's rulings of October and December 2011 extending the applicant's detention violated his right to the presumption of innocence. The District Court had to consider whether there was a reasonable suspicion and relevant grounds justifying the extension of the applicant's detention. At the same time, the court referred to the nature and social danger of the act "committed" by the applicant. Taking into account the appealed decisions and the context of their issuance (although the wording of these decisions can be considered unsuccessful), it cannot be said that they would have been a direct and unconditional declaration of the applicant's guilt before he was recognized as such according to the law. The Court did not call the applicant a criminal, and in fact all the decisions on the extension of the applicant's detention contained accompanying statements explicitly stating that the applicant was only accused of the criminal act in question. In addition, the Court of Appeal amended these rulings.
Regarding the district court's decision of March 2012 on the appointment of a court hearing, the situation was different. This decision was issued at the beginning of the consideration of the applicant's case by the district court, which had to examine the merits of the charge against the applicant and had to choose its wording with extreme care. However, the district court indicated that it had appointed the applicant's case for consideration "in order to bring him to criminal responsibility". Such a direct and unconditional statement, especially made by the same judge who eventually decided the guilty verdict in the applicant's case, could well be interpreted as meaning that the district court considered the applicant's guilt to be an established fact and that the purpose of the trial was only to confirm the already predetermined outcome. Although the district court could have simply made a technical error in this regard by poorly formulating its decision, it never acknowledged this error and did not try to correct it at any stage of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ruling of the European Court in the case "Grubnik v. Ukraine" (Grubnyk v. Ukraine) (See: The Ruling of the European Court in the case "Grubnik v. Ukraine" (Grubnyk v. Ukraine) dated September 17, 2020, complaint No. 58444/15)). Also, the corrections in question have not been made by any of the other state authorities of Armenia. The fact that the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment as a result could not invalidate his original right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law.
RESOLUTION
In the case, there was no violation of the requirements of paragraph 2 of article 6 of the Convention in relation to the court's decisions of 2011.
The case involved a violation of the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the court's decision of March 2012 (adopted unanimously).
The European Court also ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention due to the inability of the Armenian courts to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for extending the applicant's detention, as well as a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention due to the fact that the court session in March 2012 was held in violation of the principle of equality parties.
COMPENSATION
In the application of article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded the applicant 5,200 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.