FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF HAKOBYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 21350/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
2 April 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hakobyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Andreas Zünd, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 April 2019. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms D. Shakhramanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 3. The application was communicated to the Armenian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, in particular because of the absence of an opportunity to put questions in court to the witness whose testimony had played a significant role in securing his conviction. THE LAW        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the convention

6. The applicant complained of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, in particular because he had not had an opportunity to put questions in court to the witness who had testified against him. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. 7. The general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and his statements previously made by him were admitted as evidence are well-established in the Court’s case law (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015). In Schatschaschwili, the Court found a violation on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the two key prosecution witnesses examined at any stage of the proceedings (ibid., §§ 161-65). While developed for scenarios in which a prosecution witness does not appear at the trial, these principles can also be applicable where the witnesses do appear before the trial court, but procedural irregularities prevent the applicant from examining them. They can also serve as guidance where the relevant issue is not the non-appearance of witnesses at the trial but rather the modalities of their cross-examination which may limit the rights of the defence (see Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, § 46, 12 March 2020). 8. Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, including the parties’ observations, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. It considers that the fact that the applicant was not provided with an opportunity to put key questions to the witness in question weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court also takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicant on account of the admission of the witness’s untested statement as evidence. 9. The applicant also complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts had failed to adequately address his arguments as regards assessment of the untested witness statement. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case (see paragraphs 7-9 above) and that there is no need to examine separately this remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Avetisyan v. Armenia, no. 13479/11, §§ 73-74, 10 November 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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