Facts of the case

The applicant, Mr Vahe Grigoryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Yerevan. He is a lawyer by profession.
On 10 June 2005 the investigator decided to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the preparation and use of obviously false documents and misappropriation of a third person’s property entrusted to him in June and July 2003.
On 7 October 2005 the investigator drew up an arrest record on suspicion of having committed the crime described above. On 10 October the applicant was formally charged before the District Court of Yerevan.
When, on this day, the applicant’s lawyers filed a motion to release the applicant after the standard 72 hour suspicion detention at approx. 10 pm, the judge refused to examine this issue right away. 
During the proceedings on this date, the investigator filed a motion with the District Court, seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. The investigator substantiated his motion with the fact that the applicant had committed a grave crime, that if he stayed at large he might obstruct the examination of the case during the pre-trial and court proceedings by falsifying documents, making public the data collected in the investigation and other means, that he had refused to testify and to answer questions when interviewed as a witness and that he had misappropriated a particularly large amount of money.
Although the applicant’s lawyers were handed a copy of the investigator’s motion, they were denied to get acquainted with the materials on which the motion was based on.
The District Court judge closed the hearing on 11 October 2005 at 5.05 am and ordered the applicant’s detention until 7 December 2005.
The applicant’s lawyers appealed to the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation but remained unsuccessful.  
In the meantime, on 28 November 2005, the investigator filed a motion to have the applicant’s detention prolonged for another two months and the District Court granted it on 2 December 2005, taking into account that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted. The Court of appeal agreed with the District Court.
A request for replacing the applicant’s detention with a non-custodial preventive measure was not considered by the courts.
A second motion for prolonging the applicant’s detention was granted by the District Court but quashed by the Court of Appeal on 15 February 2006 ordering the applicant’s release.
On 10 August 2006 the investigator decided to suspend the criminal proceedings because they depended on the testimony of two suspects whose whereabouts are still unknown. In light of the evidence which was gathered against the applicant, a termination of the law suit was not discussed, though.
The proceedings are still suspended and their resumption is subject to the appearances of the two other suspects.  

Complaints

The applicant mainly alleges a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention for Human Rights because his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offense and the prolonging of the detention was groundless. He furthermore questions the impartiality and independence of all Courts involved.
Under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention he alleges that the District Court failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision. So did the Court of Appeal
He alleges that the courts did not consider the possibility of imposing bail instead of detention in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on the grounds that there were no adversarial proceedings before the District Court.
He alleges that the domestic law does not provide the right to compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage in violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.
The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him are in violation of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Lastly, the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him are in violation of the requirements of Article 10, alleging that they pursued the aim of silencing his opinion.

The European Court for Human Rights asked the Armenian Government few questions:

  • did the domestic courts provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s detention as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
  • were the proceedings ordering the applicant’s detention conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
  • was the non-examination of the applicant’s appeal on points of law compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
  • was the prolongation of the applicant’s detention on 2 December 2005 carried out in compliance with a procedure prescribed by law as required under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
  • Can the applicant be considered as a person deprived of his liberty during the court hearing of 10-11 October 2005, between 9.50 p.m. and 5.05 a.m.? If so, was this deprivation of liberty lawful? Especially, did it include the requirement of foreseeability, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

Marcus Getschmann