Communicated on 23 January 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 19046/12
Stepan HOVAKIMYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 29 March 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stepan Hovakimyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Safaryan, 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 6 February 2010 a criminal case was instituted and the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a robbery.
On 9 February 2010 the investigator dealing with the applicant’s criminal case applied to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan with an application requesting that the applicant be detained for a period of two months, taking into account the nature and dangerousness of the imputed offence, and on the ground that the applicant, if at large, might abscond, obstruct the investigation in collusion with his unidentified accomplices, evade criminal responsibility, the likelihood of which was also increased by the dangerousness of the offence committed, and commit another offence, which was evidenced by the fact that he had a prior conviction.
On the same date the District Court allowed the investigator’s application, ordering the applicant’s detention for a period of two months on the ground that the evidence obtained in the case and the grounds and reasons contained in the investigator’s application were sufficient to detain the applicant.
On 26 March 2010 the investigator applied for a two-month extension of the applicant’s detention, which was to expire on 6 April 2010, raising similar arguments.
On 31 March 2010 the District Court decided to allow the investigator’s application on the same grounds, extending the applicant’s detention until 6 June 2010.
On 1 June 2010 the indictment was approved and the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the District Court for an examination on the merits.
On 14 June 2010 the judge to whom the case was assigned decided, with reference to Articles 292 and 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set the case down for trial stating, inter alia, that the applicant’s detention was “to remain unchanged since there were no grounds to lift that measure”.
On 13 January 2011 the applicant’s criminal case was taken over by another judge of the District Court who, on 27 January 2011, decided to set the case down for trial, stating, inter alia, that the applicant’s detention was “to remain unchanged since there were no grounds to lift that measure”.
On 22 February 2011 the applicant lodged an application for release, arguing that his continued detention was unjustified and not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. The application was dismissed by the judge on the same date.
On 14 February 2012 the applicant lodged another application for release, raising similar arguments.
On 28 March 2012 the judge decided to dismiss this application, holding that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted.
On 25 September 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an accused is entitled to lodge applications, which, pursuant to Article 102, must be examined and ruled on immediately.
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 the decisions of 14 June 2010 and 27 January 2011 were incompatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention because they contained no reasons and authorised his detention for an unlimited period of time.
The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention and that his pre-trial detention was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
The applicant complains that the trial court failed to carry out a speedy review of his application for release of 14 February 2012 as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
The applicant complains that he had no enforceable right to compensation as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, since no compensation for non-pecuniary damage was available to him under domestic law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s detention between 14 June 2010 and 25 September 2012 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the decisions authorising his detention during that period afford adequate protection from arbitrariness and meet the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of that Article?
2. Did the applicant’s pre-trial detention comply with the “reasonable time” requirement and the requirement that the domestic courts provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for it, enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies? In particular, did he lodge appeals against the decisions of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 9 February and 31 March 2010? If so, the Government are requested to submit copies of such appeals and of the decisions taken thereon.
3. Did the length of the proceedings instituted on 14 February 2012, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Khachatryan and Others v. Armenia, no. 23978/06, § 158-159, 27 November 2012)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy