FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ARUSHANYAN AND KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 26522/15 and 59819/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arushanyan and Khachatryan 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 19 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 applications were communicated to the Armenian Government (“the Government”).
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 unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against them, in particular because of the absence of an opportunity to examine in court witnesses, whose testimony played a significant role in securing the applicants’ conviction. In application no. 26522/15, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the convention6. The applicants complained principally of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against them, in particular because of the absence of an opportunity to examine in court the witnesses who had testified against them. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.
7. The general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and his statements previously made by him were admitted as evidence are well-established in the Court’s case law (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015). In Schatschaschwili, the Court found a violation on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the two key prosecution witnesses examined at any stage of the proceedings (ibid., §§ 161-65).
8. Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, including the Government’s objections, 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. Even leaving open the question as to whether there were good reasons for the key witnesses’ non-attendance, it considers that the fact that the applicants were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. The Court also takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants on account of the admission of the witnesses’ untested statements as evidence.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.
Remaining Complaints10. In application no. 26522/15, the applicant also complained, under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, of inadequate legal representation. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine this remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Avetisyan v. Armenia, no. 13479/11, §§ 73-74, 10 November 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention admissible and holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint raised in application no. 26522/15;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the absence of an opportunity to examine in court the witnesses, whose testimony played a significant role in securing the applicants’ conviction;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention
(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Final domestic decision
Charges convicted of
Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)
Summary of the nature of the witness evidence
Reasons for absence
Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
26522/15
25/05/2015
Ashot ARUSHANYAN
1986
Simonyan Liparit
Yerevan
Court of Cassation
05/03/2015
Aiding and abetting aggravated theft
A.G.
A.G.’s statement was the only evidence directly implicating the applicant in the theft and played a decisive role in his conviction.
death
Insufficient: there was a pre-trial confrontation held between the applicant and A.G. which, however, was conducted in breach of the applicant’s defence rights.
2,400
1,500
59819/19
09/10/2019
Narek KHACHATRYAN
1982
Ghazaryan Ara
Yerevan
Court of Cassation
09/04/2019
soliciting to murder
A.H.
During the pre-trial investigation the witness testified that the applicant had confided in him about soliciting to murder and that, at the applicant’s request and together with the applicant’s friend, he had handed a sum of money to the person who was found to be the murderer (A.A.). However, at the applicant’s co-accused’s trial, the witness retracted his statement and alleged that he had given the pre-trial testimony under duress by the investigating authorities. Other evidence was merely circumstantial and was not conclusive as to the commission of the offence by the applicant. In particular, other evidence included information that the applicant and the victim had been in a strained relationship, that the applicant had been at his co-accused’s house on the day of the murder and made a call from his phone; an anonymous witness’s pre-trial hearsay statement that according to A.A., A.H. had handed him money for murder; the applicant’s friend’s statement that he had helped to pass a package of what he believed to be customs clearance documents to someone at the applicant’s request and other statements (mostly pre‑trial statements of murder accomplices who retracted their pre-trial statements at the applicant’s co-accused’s trial and refused to testify at the applicant’s trial), concerning the transfer of the money, all of which had had limited probative value in the absence of A.H.’s statement.
distant region/
other country
none
2,400
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.