Communicated on 9 January 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 28597/14
Kamo AFITSERYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 26 March 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kamo Afitseryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Vanadzor. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Tumanyan, a lawyer practising in Vanadzor.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 April 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abusing his authority as an employee of a private bank and causing significant financial damage to the bank.
On 27 April 2013 the Lori Regional Court decided to detain the applicant, upon an application by the investigator in the case, for a period of two months calculated from the time of his arrest. The Regional Court stated that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the imputed offence, which gave reason to believe that he might exert unlawful influence on witnesses and thereby obstruct the investigation if he was at large.
The applicant’s detention was twice extended for two months by the court on the same grounds, namely on 20 June and 15 August 2013.
On 22 October 2013 the Lori Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention by one more month, until 25 November 2013. No appeals were lodged against that decision.
On 29 October 2013 the applicant lodged an application for bail.
On 7 November 2013 the Lori Regional Court decided to allow the application and replaced detention with bail.
On 8 November 2013 the applicant paid the bail and was released from detention.
On 9 November 2013 the prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision of 7 November 2013.
On 25 November 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashing the decision of 7 November 2013 and at the same time endorsing the decision of 22 October 2013. The Court of Appeal stated that the time spent by the applicant in detention – from 25 October to 8 November 2013 – was to be counted towards his overall detention period.
On 3 December 2013 the applicant was taken into custody and placed in detention on the basis of that decision.
In the meantime, the investigation into the applicant’s criminal case was completed and it was transferred to the Lori Regional Court for examination on the merits.
On 18 December 2013 the Court of Appeal informed the applicant, in reply to a request from him for clarification of its decision, that the ruling of 22 October 2013 had extended his detention period until 25 November 2013. As he had been released from detention on 8 November 2013, he had to stay in detention for the part of the period of detention set by the decision of 22 October 2013 which he had not served.
On 20 December 2013 the Lori Regional Court decided to set the case down for trial, stating that the preventive measure imposed on the applicant, namely detention, was “to remain unchanged” since the reasons for it have not ceased to exist.
On 9 January 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, which was left unexamined by the Court of Appeal on 29 January 2014 on the grounds that it was not amenable to appeal under domestic law.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) provides that preventive measures are measures of compulsion which are imposed on a suspect or accused for the purposes of preventing inappropriate behaviour in the course of criminal proceedings and ensuring the enforcement of a judgment. Preventive measures include detention and bail. Bail is considered as an alternative to detention and can only be imposed if there has been a court decision on detention.
Article 136 § 2 of the CCP provides that detention and bail can only be imposed by a court decision upon an application from an investigator or prosecutor or of a court’s own motion during court proceedings. Courts can also replace detention with bail upon an application from the defence.
Article 150 of the CCP provides that a court decision in pre-trial proceedings imposing or rejecting a preventive measure or extending or refusing to extend detention can be contested before an appeal court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 3 and 20 December 2013 was neither prescribed by law nor based on a court decision as required by the domestic law.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that during the court proceedings he was kept in detention on the basis of the trial court’s decision of 20 December 2013 which contained no reasons whatsoever.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s detention between 3 and 20 December 2013 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant’s detention authorised by the decision of 20 December 2013 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did that decision afford adequate protection from arbitrariness and meet the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of that Article? The Government are requested to specify until when the applicant was kept in detention on the basis of that decision and to submit copies of relevant documents.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy