FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 54261/13 and 18361/16)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
1 March 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Davtyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jolien Schukking, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 54261/13 and 18361/16) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 August 2013 and 23 March 2016 respectively by an Armenian national, Mr Samvel Davtyan, born in 1968 and, at the material time, detained in Yerevan (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr K. Hakobyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, the alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation and the fairness of the trial to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the European Court of Human Rights, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 8 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment and the alleged lack of an effective investigation. It also concerns the alleged unfairness of the applicant’s trial as regards the reliance by the courts on his confession allegedly obtained under duress. It raises issues under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. 2. On 23 September 2011 at 8.30 a.m. the applicant was taken to the Principal Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (PDFAOC) of the Armenian Police, where he was allegedly subjected to several hours of ill-treatment by police officers who started by hitting the applicant on various parts of his body. At 11.30 a.m. the applicant was questioned and placed under arrest by an investigator of the Principal Department for Investigations (PDI) of the Armenian Police. His ill-treatment allegedly continued thereafter, and included stripping him and handcuffing his hands and feet to a chair, beating him with rubber batons, administering electric shocks and kicking him on the soles of his feet, back, ribs and other parts of the body, demanding that he confess to a crime. At 11.30 p.m. the applicant was admitted to a police temporary holding facility where a number of injuries were recorded, including “a wound and swelling on the left temple, reddish traces on the back, wounds on both shins, swelling of the right hand, swelling of both feet, and a wound on the right wrist”. A notification of the applicant’s injuries was sent to the PDI. On 24 September 2011 the PDI investigator questioned the applicant who confessed to the crime. On 1 October 2011 the PDI investigator examined the medical register of the temporary holding facility and on 3 October 2011 he questioned the applicant who refused to testify about his injuries. On 4 October 2011 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, as ordered by the investigator, who confirmed part of the applicant’s injuries, finding that they had been inflicted by a blunt hard object. 3. In October 2011 the applicant appointed a lawyer of his choosing who contested the results of the forensic medical examination, alleging the applicant’s ill-treatment. On 6 April 2012 the PDI investigator took statements from two PDFAOC officers who had effected the applicant’s arrest. Both made identical one-paragraph-long statements, denying the applicant’s ill-treatment and alleging that the applicant had resisted arrest, resulting in the use of force and the applicant falling during the incident, which may have been the cause of his injuries. No questions were posed by the investigator. In June and July 2012 the applicant complained in detail to the General Prosecutor about his alleged ill-treatment and requested that his allegations be investigated by the Special Investigative Service (SIS). His complaint of July 2012 was forwarded to that authority which questioned the applicant on 15 August 2012 who insisted on his complaint and refused to answer questions about his injuries. On 23 August 2012 the SIS refused to institute criminal proceedings, citing the statements of the two PDFAOC officers and the applicant’s refusal to testify and concluding that his injuries had resulted from the lawful use of force by the arresting officers who had tried to prevent the applicant’s flight. The applicant’s appeals against that decision were dismissed by the courts. Separately, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment in the trial against him. In doing so, the courts relied, inter alia, on the applicant’s confession of 24 September 2011 and dismissed the applicant’s requests to exclude that evidence.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation