FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VANESYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 35710/22 and 2 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 February 2026
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vanesyan and Others 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 5 February 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre‑trial detention. In application no. 38190/23, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 7. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. Having examined the Government’s arguments and supporting evidence, the Court does not discern sufficient grounds to accept their objections, which must therefore be rejected (compare Arzumanyan v. Armenia, no. 25935/08, §§ 30-32, 11 January 2018; Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 72, 15 June 2021; and Avushyan v. Armenia [Committee], no. 34684/13, § 18, 31 January 2023). 8. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references). 9. In the leading case of Muradkhanyan v. Armenia (no. 12895/06, 5 June 2012), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 38190/23, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 5: violation