FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF AVUSHYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 34684/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
31 January 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Avushyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 34684/13) 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 21 May 2013 by an Armenian national, Mr Marzpetuni Avushyan, born in 1971 and, at the material time, detained in Nubarashen Remand Prison (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr T. Hayrapetyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the length of the applicant’s detention, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s detention and the alleged lack of speedy review of lawfulness of the applicant’s detention to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 10 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the grounds and length of the applicant’s detention and the speediness of examination of an application for release lodged by him. 2. On 5 February 2010 the applicant was arrested and on 8 February 2010 he was detained by the Armavir Regional Court (hereafter, the Regional Court) for a period of two months on suspicion of having committed robbery. It was stated that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant would abscond, avoid criminal responsibility, commit a new offence and obstruct the proceedings. Thereafter his pretrial detention was extended by the Regional Court on the same grounds four times, on a bi-monthly basis. 3. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the last of those four decisions taken on 27 September 2010. 4. On 19 November 2010 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, with a similar reasoning. 5. In the meantime, on 29 October 2010, after the investigation was completed and the case was transferred to a court, the Regional Court decided to set the case down for trial, stating that the applicant’s detention was to remain unchanged. 6. On 27 December 2011 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. 7. On 11 July 2012 the Criminal Court of Appeal quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case. 8. On 4 September 2012 the Regional Court decided to set the case down for trial, stating that the applicant’s detention was to remain unchanged. 9. On 30 October 2012 the applicant lodged an application for release. 10. On the same date the Regional Court decided to adjourn the examination of that application until “essential circumstances necessary to make a ruling on the application were clarified”. According to the applicant, the judge stated that it was necessary to question the injured parties and witnesses and to examine all the evidence before examining the application. 11. On 10 April 2013 the Regional Court examined the application of 30 October 2012 and dismissed it on the same grounds as before. 12. On 6 February 2014 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the higher courts.

Outcome for Article 5: violation