Communicated on 21 February 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 79501/12
Ashot ARUSHANYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 4 December 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ashot Arushanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1986 and at the material time was detained at Nubarashen Remand Prison in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Simonyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 June 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of assisting in the theft of an exceptionally large amount of money by providing information to a group of persons on the location and transfer of that money.
On 23 June 2012 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted an application lodged by the investigator seeking to detain the applicant for two months. The decision of the District Court contained the following reasons: reasonable suspicion that the applicant had aided in the robbery was established because one of the co-accused had stated that he had obtained the information on the stolen money from the applicant; the applicant was charged with a serious offence; important circumstances and persons participating in the offence had to be disclosed; a significant part of the money had not yet been found; if released, the applicant could easily obstruct the investigation, exert unlawful influence on persons involved in the proceedings and conceal important materials.
On 10 August 2012 the investigator asked the District Court to extend the period of the applicant’s detention for a month, reasoning that certain investigatory measures had to be taken, namely identifying certain persons and the location of the stolen money, obtaining information from the Central Bank and obtaining a forensic expert opinion. The investigator submitted that the applicant could obstruct these measures, if at large.
On 15 August and 18 September 2012 the District Court twice extended the applicant’s detention, first until 20 September and then until 5 October 2012. On the first occasion, the court ruled that the applicant could abscond and obstruct the investigative measures to be taken, including identifying certain persons and the location of the stolen money, obtaining information from the Central Bank and obtaining a forensic expert opinion. On the second occasion, the court ruled that the applicant could obstruct the investigation and exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings. The applicant’s application for bail was rejected on the ground that bail could not guarantee his proper conduct.
On 20 September 2012 the criminal case in respect of the applicant was transmitted to the District Court for examination on the merits and on 24 September 2012 that court decided to take over the case. The latter decision also stated that there were no grounds for the applicant’s release and that the previously stated grounds for his detention persisted.
On 4 October 2012 the District Court decided to set the case down for trial. In its decision, the District Court refused the applicant’s request to be released or to be granted bail and stated that the applicant’s pre‑trial detention should continue. The court reasoned that reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence still persisted, as well as the previously stated reasons for his detention, while there were no grounds for his release.
On 15 October 2012 the Court of Cassation in the final instance upheld the decision of 15 August 2012.
On 18 October 2012 the District Court held its first hearing, at which the applicant asked to be released, arguing that the period of his authorised detention had expired on 5 October 2012. The District Court denied this request on the same grounds as on 4 October 2012.
On 30 January 2013 the District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. The District Court also stated that the applicant’s detention must continue.
The applicant appealed against that judgment.
On 23 July 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered a new examination.
On 28 October 2013 the District Court decided to set the case down for trial. In that decision, the District Court stated that the applicant’s detention should continue.
On 12 December 2013 another judge of the District Court, who had taken over the criminal case on 29 November 2013, decided to continue the applicant’s detention.
On 20 December 2013 the applicant requested the District Court to release him.
On 11 February 2014 the District Court, relying on Article 138 § 6 of the CCP, rejected the applicant’s request, reasoning that there was no maximum time-limit for detention at the trial stage. It also noted that the District Court’s decisions of 4 October 2012, 28 October and 12 December 2013 were a lawful basis for the applicant’s continued detention, as the reasons adduced in these decisions still persisted. The District Court reasoned that, in connection with new examination of the criminal case, the applicant could exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings, thereby impeding the collection of new evidence. It also stressed the gravity of the charges against the applicant, as well as the likely severity of the anticipated sentence. On the basis of the same reasoning, the District Court also refused to release the applicant on bail.
As of 14 July 2014 the applicant was still detained as his trial was on‑going.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 291 provides that a criminal case received by a court is taken over by one of its judges in accordance with a prescribed procedure and a relevant decision is adopted.
Article 292 provides that the judge who takes over a case examines the case material and, within fifteen days of the date of taking over the case, adopts a number of decisions, including a decision setting the case down for trial.
Article 293 § 2 provides that the decision setting the case down for trial must contain, inter alia, a ruling imposing, lifting or changing a preventive measure.
Article 300 provides that, when adopting decisions, the court is obliged to examine the issue of whether or not to impose a preventive measure or, if such a measure has already been imposed, whether or not it is justified.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that, starting from 5 October 2012, his detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, as the District Court decisions to leave his detention as a preventive measure unchanged had no basis in domestic law, while his detention between 23 July and 28 October 2013 was not authorised by any court ruling.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 that the courts failed to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s detention during the trial compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) as regards the applicant’s detention from 24 September 2012 to 30 January 2013 and from 28 October 2013 onwards, did the decisions authorising his detention during that period afford adequate protection from arbitrariness and meet the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to specify whether the applicant was eventually released during the trial or whether he remained detained until his eventual conviction or acquittal at first instance, and to submit copies of relevant documents.
(b) as regards the applicant’s detention from 23 July to 28 October 2013, was this detention lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, taking into account that there was no court decision authorising his detention during that period?
2. Did the domestic courts provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s detention, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., 5 July 2016, and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20 October 2016)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy