KOCHARYAN v. ARMENIA and 6 other applications

Published on 30 September 2024

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 52996/18
Robert KOCHARYAN against Armenia
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 12 September 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Armenian national. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Alumyan and Mr A. Orbelyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the President of Armenia from 9 April 1998 until 8 April 2008.

On 26 July 2018 the applicant appeared for an interview as a witness within the framework of the criminal case instituted in connection with the events that occurred in Yerevan on 1 and 2 March 2008 (for details see Advisory opinion concerning the use of the “blanket reference” or “legislation by reference” technique in the definition of an offence and the standards of comparison between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and the amended criminal law [GC], request no. P16-2019-001, Armenian Constitutional Court, §§ 13-15, 29 May 2020 ‑ hereafter, “the Advisory opinion”).

On the same date, an investigator at the Special Investigative Committee charged the applicant under Article 300.1 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) with overthrowing the constitutional order (for further details regarding the charges against the applicant, see the Advisory Opinion, cited above, § 16) and applied to the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan (“the Yerevan Court”) requesting that the applicant be detained for two months.

The applicant objected against the investigator’s application. He disputed the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the alleged offence and argued that there were no grounds for detention. He further argued that he enjoyed presidential immunity.

On 27 July 2018 the Yerevan Court granted the investigator’s application and ordered the applicant’s detention. It found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the alleged offence. In doing so, the court relied on the following evidence:

“The top secret order no. 0032 of 23 February 2008 of the Minister of Defence of Armenia which was titled ‘On the execution of the tasks given by the Commander‑in‑Chief of Armenia’.

The record of the examination of a laser disk containing a video of a televised speech of 29 February 2008, according to which [the applicant] said in his speech that the authorities have two options: first, to wait patiently until the theatrical performance [at Freedom Square] fades away by itself; second option, to clean [Freedom Square] with the use of police forces.

The record of examination of a laser disk containing a video recorded on 1 March 2008, according to which at around 3 p.m. on 1 March 2008 personnel of the units of the armed forces of the Ministry of Defence of Armenia, vehicles and armoured vehicles were brought to the city of Yerevan and its vicinities.

The record of examination of a laser disk containing a video of a statement given by [M.H., the Minister of Defence at the time of the events,] to the members of the fact‑finding group investigating the events of 1 and 2 March 2008, according to which [M.H.] did not deny the circumstances of establishing a de facto state of emergency and deploying the units of the armed forces in the city of Yerevan.

The record of the examination of a laser disk containing the press conference of 1 March 2008 of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, [V.O.], according to which, the latter, at around 7 p.m. on the same day, made an announcement about the decree of the President of Armenia declaring a state of emergency and about the supporting documents being ready.

The record of the examination of the video containing the speech of 1 March 2008 of the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan, according to which at around 10 p.m. on the same day he published the decree declaring a state of emergency in Yerevan.

The decree of 1 March 2008 of the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan ‘On the declaration of the state of emergency’ by which the implementation of the state of emergency was entrusted also to the Ministry of Defence of Armenia.

The record of the examination of the video containing the live address of the Chief of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defence of Armenia, [S.O.], according to which [S.O.] addressed the public and warned that any attempt to organise or participate in events banned during the state of emergency will receive an adequate and a strong response, in case of slightest doubts, the armed forces of Armenia will take measures, prescribed by the Constitution and the laws, against the offenders.

The witness statements of [G.K., A.M., A.A., M.S., V.H., A.K., Va.P. and Vi.P.]”

The court further found that, if at large, the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the proceedings, including on the former Minister of Defence, as well as by hiding or falsifying the materials that were of significance for the case. According to the decision, the court took into account the nature and dangerousness of the offence, the severity of the possible punishment, the applicant’s personality, his former position, his connections, the stage of the investigation and the need to take further investigative measures. Bail was considered ineffective for neutralising the above-mentioned risks. The court also stated that, in view of the charges under Article 300.1 of the CC, given that the offence imputed to the applicant included actions that had not derived from his status, the constitutional guarantee of immunity was not applicable.

The applicant lodged appeals against the decision.

On 13 August 2018 the Criminal Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s appeals on the grounds that the alleged offence had derived from the applicant’s status as president and that he had, therefore, enjoyed immunity. The same day the applicant was released.

The Prosecutor General lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation requesting that the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal be quashed and the decision of the Yerevan Court be upheld.

Meanwhile, it appears that following his release, the applicant applied to the investigator requesting permission to travel abroad for medical treatment but his request was refused.

On 4 September 2018 the investigator decided to apply a written undertaking not to leave the place of residence as a preventive measure in respect of the applicant.

On 15 November 2018 the Court of Cassation, upon the Prosecutor General’s appeal, quashed the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination. It reasoned that a former president could enjoy immunity if he had acted within his constitutional powers, was guided by public interest and his actions were necessary for the performance of his functions. If, however, a president, while performing his duties, was guided by his private, personal interest or did not have the authority to perform the relevant action or exceeded his constitutional powers when performing it, then such actions had to be deemed unrelated to his status. It therefore found that the conclusion of the Criminal Court of Appeal as regards the applicant’s immunity had not been well-founded.

On 7 December 2018, following a fresh examination, the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the decision of the Yerevan Court of 27 July 2018. On the same day the applicant was detained again.

In its reasoning, the Criminal Court of Appeal, in substance, endorsed the Yerevan Court’s conclusions regarding the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and the lack of immunity. As regards the grounds for detention, it reiterated the nature of the alleged offence and the severity of the punishment prescribed for it. It further noted that the applicant had previously held high-ranking positions which gave reasons to believe that he had connections, influence and reputation, including among the persons implicated in the case, which increased the probability that, if he stayed at large during the active phase of evidence gathering, he would obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal also agreed with the Yerevan Court’s conclusions regarding the risk of the applicant’s absconding. In that connection, it essentially relied on the information submitted by the investigative authorities, according to which the applicant’s main place of work was in Russia, and that there had been 150 recorded instances of him traveling outside Armenia between 2008 and 2018. Bail was considered ineffective for neutralising the risk of the applicant’s obstructing the proceedings. At the same time, reference was made to the grounds for detention as a reason for not allowing bail.

On 18 January 2019, the Yerevan Court, at the investigator’s request decided to extend the period of the applicant’s detention by two months. It considered that the “reasonable suspicion” and the grounds for the applicant’s detention persisted.

On 29 January 2019 the applicant appealed against the Yerevan Court’s decision.

On 7 February 2019 the Criminal Court of Appeal refused the appeal.

On 12 February 2019 a new charge was brought against the applicant under Article 311 § 4 (2) of the CC (receiving a bribe in a particularly large amount).

On 15 March 2019 the Yerevan Court, at the investigator’s request, decided to extend the period of the applicant’s detention by two more months. It found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed the offence proscribed by Article 300.1 § 1 of the CC but that there was no reasonable suspicion as regards the new charge under Article 311 § 4 (2) of the CC. As grounds for detention, the Yerevan Court mentioned the need to prevent the commission of a new offence and an unlawful influence on persons involved in the proceedings. The court did not see a risk that the applicant might abscond. Bail was not allowed and as justification reference was made to the grounds of detention.

The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the decision.

On 11 April 2019 the Criminal Court of Appeal refused the appeals. It agreed with the Yerevan Court’s conclusions regarding the “reasonable suspicion” and the risk of the applicant’s obstructing the investigation, as well as the absence of a risk that he might abscond. The Criminal Court of Appeal found, however, that the Yerevan Court’s conclusions about the risk of the applicant’s re-offending had not been based on the submitted materials. It lastly noted that bail could not neutralise the risk of obstructing the investigation.

On 29 April 2019 the criminal case was referred to the Yerevan Court for trial.

On 18 May 2019 the Yerevan Court decided to replace the applicant’s detention with an alternative preventive measure in the form of a personal guarantee provided by two public figures that the applicant would display proper behaviour, appear before the court and perform his other procedural obligations.

On the same day the applicant was released.

On 20 May 2019 the Yerevan Court, without entering into the judicial examination stage, decided to suspend the criminal proceedings and apply to the Constitutional Court with a request to determine, inter alia, the compatibility of Article 300.1 of the CC with the Constitution. The court expressed doubts, inter alia, as to whether Article 300.1 met the requirement of legal certainty. Noting that the provision contained references to several Articles of the Constitution, to the court stated that it was uncertain whether it referred to Articles of the Constitution that had been in force in 2008 or to the 2015 version of the Constitution. The meaning of the term ‘de facto elimination of the norm’ used in that Article, which should be manifested ‘by terminating the validity of that norm in the legal system’, was also unclear. Furthermore, it was unclear for the court whether the term ‘legal system’ was used in that Article in a broad or narrow sense, and whether the termination of the legal norm should be episodic or systemic, final or temporary.

On 29 May and 4 June 2019, the applicant submitted applications to the Constitutional Court, requesting to determine the compatibility of the same provision with the Constitution.

The prosecutor and one of the victims in the criminal case appealed against the Yerevan Court’s decision of 18 May 2019 to the Criminal Court of Appeal.

While the appeals were pending before the Criminal Court of Appeal, the applicant’s counsel submitted an application to the court requesting that the latter apply to the Constitutional Court for the determination of the constitutionality of certain procedural rules and stay the criminal proceedings.

At a hearing held on 20 June 2019, the applicant’s counsel were invited to present their oral pleadings in reply to the appeals. Before presenting their pleadings, the applicant’s counsel asked that the court first examine and take a decision on their above-mentioned application. The presiding judge had several exchanges with the applicant’s counsel in order to clarify whether the latter wanted to proceed with their oral pleadings or considered that the court first had to examine the application. Following repeated requests by the applicant’s counsel to examine and decide on the application, the presiding judge concluded that, by insisting on the examination of the application, the defence counsel tried to disrupt the normal course of the proceedings and unnecessarily delay the hearing, which, in substance, amounted to a waiver of their rights. Consequently, the presiding judge decided that the review proceedings were completed.

On 25 June 2019 the Criminal Court of Appeal issued its decision, quashing the decision of the Yerevan Court and ordering the applicant’s detention, without setting any time-limit. It found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences proscribed by Articles 300.1 § 1 and 311 § 4 (2) of the CC and that, if at large, the applicant might abscond and obstruct the proceedings. As reasons for its conclusions, the Criminal Court of Appeal mentioned the dangerousness of the offences imputed to the applicant, the severity of the “anticipated” punishment, the applicant’s employment in Russia, multiple instances of his travel outside Armenia, the fact that the applicant had expressed a desire to go abroad for medical treatment, his substantial financial means, the fact of having held high ranking posts in the past and, by implication, his influence and connections. It further stated that at that stage of the investigation, when the applicant was already familiar with the materials of the case and the persons involved in it, the risk of obstruction of the proceedings by exerting unlawful influence on those persons was higher. The court lastly added that, when deciding on a preventive measure, it had to be guided by the presumption that the grounds for detention were sufficient.

On the same day the applicant was detained again.

(a)   Applications for release lodged on 26 and 27 June and 14 August 2019

On 26 June 2019 the applicant submitted an application to the Yerevan Court asking that his detention be replaced with a preventive measure that did not entail a deprivation of liberty. He alleged that the deprivation of his liberty was unlawful.

On 27 June 2019 the applicant submitted an application to the Yerevan Court asking for release on bail. He alleged that there were no grounds for his detention.

On 2 July 2019 the applicant sent a letter to the Yerevan Court asking it to examine his application for release on bail.

According to the applicant, he was orally informed that his request for release on bail was not being examined because the Criminal Court of Appeal had not returned the materials of the case to the Yerevan Court.

On 4 July 2019 the applicant submitted copies of the materials of the criminal case to the Yerevan Court and requested that his applications of 26 and 27 June 2019 be examined.

On 10 July 2019 the applicant applied to the Criminal Court of Appeal requesting that the materials of the criminal case be returned to the Yerevan Court so that the examination of the case could continue.

By a letter of 11 July 2019, the Criminal Court of Appeal replied that the materials of the criminal case would be returned to the relevant court only after the expiry of the time-limit for appeal. It also stated that in case an appeal on points of law was lodged, the case file would be sent to the Court of Cassation.

On 27 July 2019 the Supreme Judicial Council suspended the powers of the judge at the Yerevan Court who presided over the applicant’s case, in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against that judge.

On 14 August 2019 the applicant submitted another application to the Yerevan Court asking for release on bail. He again alleged that there were no grounds for his detention.

On 19 August 2019 the applicant’s case was reassigned to a different judge of the Yerevan Court who admitted the case for examination the following day.

(b)   The decision of 2 September 2019 leaving the applicant’s detention unchanged

Following the assignment of the case to a new judge, the Yerevan Court, on 2 September 2019, without holding a hearing, decided to set the case for trial and held that the applicant’s detention ordered by the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal of 25 June 2019 was to remain unchanged. The court considered that in the preparatory stage of the trial the applicant had already exercised his constitutional right to be heard by a court and that the change of the court’s composition did not call for a new examination of the preventive measure in a court hearing. No time-limit was set for the applicant’s detention. The court noted, however, that the applicant’s applications for release of 26 and 27 June and 14 August 2019 were scheduled to be examined in the upcoming court hearing on 12 September 2019.

On 6 September 2019 the applicant appealed against the Yerevan Court’s decision in its part concerning his detention.

On 16 September 2019 the Criminal Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible. It considered that the Yerevan Court’s decision was not subject to appeal. It further stated that the reassignment of the case to a new judge did not automatically set aside the decisions taken on preventive measures and, therefore, the new judge to whom the case was assigned did not have to re-examine whether the detention had been justified.

On 24 September 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision.

On 25 February 2021 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal and remitted the case to the same court. It noted that the Yerevan Court’s decision was subject to appeal and the Criminal Court of Appeal was obliged to examine the appeal.

On 15 March 2021 the Criminal Court of Appeal, having examined the appeal, refused it on the merits. It essentially reasoned that the applicant had already been brought before the court and had exercised his right to be heard, before his detention was ordered on 25 June 2019. It therefore found that the Yerevan Court had not been obliged to re-examine the applicant’s detention. Moreover, the question of the applicant’s detention had been scheduled to be examined on 12 September 2019.

On 30 April 2021 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision. It appears that his appeal was admitted for examination by the Court of Cassation but no information is available on further developments.

(c)   Examination of the applicant’s applications for release

On 12 September 2019 the Yerevan Court examined the applicant’s applications for release of 26 and 27 June and 14 August 2019 and decided to refuse them by its decision of 20 September 2019. The court stated that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged persisted. As for the grounds for detention, it saw no risk of the applicant’s absconding but considered that there was a risk that he might obstruct the proceedings by exerting influence on persons involved in them. The court stated that the latter risk had subsided at that stage of the proceedings but had not disappeared completely and, therefore, could not be ruled out. It lastly noted that alternative preventive measures were incapable of preventing such a risk.

(d)   Applications for release of 16 and 24 March 2020

On 16 March 2020 the applicant submitted an application to the Yerevan Court requesting that his detention be replaced with the personal guarantee of four persons as a preventive measure.

On 24 March 2020 the applicant submitted another application to the Yerevan Court requesting that he be released from detention or his detention be replaced with any other alternative preventive measure which did not entail a deprivation of liberty.

By a letter dated 30 March 2020 the registry of the Yerevan Court replied that the presiding judge was on sick leave.

On 13 May 2020 the Yerevan Court refused the applicant’s applications.

The applicant appealed to the Criminal Court of Appeal.

On 18 June 2020 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to release the applicant on bail.

The next day the applicant was released.

On 26 March 2021 the Constitutional Court, following an examination conducted on the basis of the Yerevan Court’s request of 20 May 2019 and the applicant’s applications of 29 May and 4 June 2019, decided that Article 300.1 of the CC was not in line with Articles 78 (principle of proportionality) and 79 (principle of certainty) of the 2015 Constitution and declared it unconstitutional. In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court stated, inter alia, the following:

“... Article 300.1 of the CC is problematic from the point of view of the principle of legal certainty prescribed by Article 79 of the Constitution in so far as it makes a ‘blanket reference’ to the norms of the Constitution that were in force at the time of its enactment but had been amended at the time of its application because it does not allow a person to have a clear idea of ​​the constituent elements of the relevant criminal offence proscribed by the [CC] and to clearly foresee which of his actions (omission) will entail criminal liability.

The Constitutional Court attaches particular importance to the fact that the question of uncertainty of concepts used in the disputed Article has been also raised by the court examining the case on the merits. In particular, the term ‘de facto elimination of the norm’ used in the disputed Article, which should be manifested ‘by terminating the validity of that norm in the legal system’, is not clear to the court. It is not clear to the court whether the term ‘legal system’ is used in a broad or narrow sense, whether the termination of the legal norm should be episodic or systemic, final or temporary.

...

Thus, the disputed provision, which prescribes the most intensive interference with the basic right to liberty of person, is formulated so vaguely that it does not allow to understand its meaning, may lead to unforeseeable and therefore also arbitrary application, and allows expansion of the boundaries of the crime due to the fact of referring to constitutional norms with an extremely high degree of abstraction.”

Consequently, on 6 April 2021, the Yerevan Court decided to terminate the criminal prosecution against the applicant and other co-accused under Article 300.1 of the CC on the grounds that the criminal offence was absent.

On 26 July 2018 A.D., an advisor to the Prime Minister of Armenia, shared a media Article titled “Robert Kocharyan has been charged, a motion was submitted to detain him” on her Facebook page and commented: “Nothing is forgotten, no one is forgotten. 1 March. The spring stolen by Kocharyan”.

On 27 July 2018 S.G., another advisor to the Prime Minister, posted the following text on Facebook with the applicant’s picture:

“... you have to rot in prison and your family’s lavish life full of pleasures has to end!!!!!”

On 28 July 2018 N.B., another advisor to the Prime Minister, posted the applicant’s picture with the following comment:

“What was the real reason for the events of 1 March: greed as a motivation to keep what had been illegally looted [from the State] at all costs ..., which led to 10 deaths.”

In a media interview that was published on 3 August 2018, the Head of the Special Investigative Committee, S.K., speaking about the charges brought against the applicant, said, inter alia, the following:

“...What has been committed? An overthrow of the Constitution and of the constitutional order. How has the overthrow of the constitutional order been committed? By using the army and the armed forces for solving problems in domestic political matters...”

On 11 September 2018 the Prime Minister made the following statement during a public rally:

“... Robert Kocharyan withdrew the troops from the Armenia-Azerbaijan border in order to bring them and occupy his own people and that has been proven .․․ maybe he had made an agreement with [the president of Azerbaijan] such as ‘let me massacre our people, and you do not attack us’. Otherwise, who in his right mind would withdraw the troops from the border and bring them to the centre of the capital? Who is he, if not a criminal? Who is he, if not a traitor? ․․․ Our operational information suggests that on the morning of 1 March the instruction was precisely to smash the people... Robert Kocharyan and [his successor S.S.] are responsible for usurping power in Armenia and they have to stand before the court. Robert Kocharyan, [S.S.] are responsible for looting Armenia and they have to stand before the court...”

At a public event, allegedly held on 15 September 2018, the Prime Minister, in the presence of media representatives, made, inter alia, the following statement:

“...the explanation for releasing Robert Kocharyan. It says ‘he has immunity’. What does it mean ‘he has immunity’? Does it mean it is possible to organise the murder of people and say ‘I have immunity’? Where is such a thing written?...”

On 17 September 2018 the applicant lodged a civil defamation claim under Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code with the Yerevan Court against the Prime Minister requesting that the latter be obliged to publicly apologise for his statement made on 15 September 2018.

The Prime Minister submitted a reply in which he essentially stated that his statement concerned the interpretation of the constitutional doctrine of immunity given in the decision to release the applicant and that it had been formulated as a general, rhetorical question. He denied that his statement attributed murder to the applicant.

In a court hearing held on 12 June 2019 the Prime Minister’s representative stated that the statement concerned the interpretation of a constitutional norm and assured that it had not concerned the applicant.

On 13 June 2019 the applicant withdrew his civil claim following which the civil proceedings were terminated.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Constitution have been set out in the Advisory opinion, cited above (§§ 25-28).

Article 138 § 6 provides that there are no limits on the duration of the accused’s detention period during the court proceedings of a criminal case.

Article 300 provides that, when adopting decisions, the court is obliged to decide whether to apply a preventive measure in respect of the accused and, in case a preventive measure has been applied, whether the type of the preventive measure is justified.

In a decision taken on 26 June 2018 the Constitutional Court declared Article 300 of the CCP unconstitutional in so far as it did not envisage a possibility for the accused and/or his defence counsel, during the preparation of the case for trial, to participate in the examination by a court of the issue of whether or not to choose detention as a preventive measure in respect of the accused and, in case detention had been chosen as a preventive measure, whether or not it was justified.

In the same decision, the Constitutional Court considered that the examination by a court, during the preparation of the case for trial, of the issue of whether to choose detention as a preventive measure in respect of an accused and whether the detention that had been imposed was justified, in the absence of the accused and/or his defence counsel, did not restrict the right of a person to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of his liberty with a judicial appeal (review). The Constitutional Court went on to conclude that the decision taken, during the preparation of the case for trial, on the preventive measure depriving a person from liberty could be contested by the accused or his defence counsel.

Article 1087.1 § 1 provides that a person whose honour, dignity or business reputation has been tarnished through insult or defamation can institute court proceedings against the person who made the insulting or defamatory statement.

Article 1087.1 § 2 provides that, within the meaning of the Code, an insult is a public statement made through words, images, sounds, signs or other means with the aim of tarnishing someone’s honour, dignity or business reputation. A public statement may be considered not to be an insult if it is based on true facts (except congenital defects) or pursues a paramount public interest.

Article 1087.1 § 3 provides that, within the meaning of the Code, defamation is a public statement of a false fact about a person that tarnishes his or her honour, dignity or business reputation. In defamation cases, the burden of proof as to the existence or absence of the relevant facts rests on the defendant. This burden shifts to the plaintiff if presenting such proof requires unreasonable actions or efforts on the part of the defendant, whereas the plaintiff possesses the necessary evidence.

Article 1087.1 § 7 provides that, in the case of insult, a person may request the court to order one or more of the following measures: (i) a public apology, with the form of apology to be determined by the court; (ii) if the insult appears in information disseminated by a media outlet, publication of all or part of the court’s judgment through that media outlet, with the manner and volume of the publication to be determined by the court; and/or (iii) payment of compensation of up to 1,000 times the fixed minimum wage.

Article 1087.1 § 8 provides that, in case of defamation, a person may claim through court proceedings one or more of the following measures: (i) if the defamatory statements of fact are contained in information disseminated by a media outlet, the person may demand a public retraction of such statements and/or a publication of his reply regarding such statements through the same media outlet, with the text of the retraction and the reply to be confirmed by the court on the basis of the law of the Republic of Armenia “On mass media”; and/or (ii) payment of compensation of up to 2,000 times the fixed minimum wage.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention was unlawful and that it was not based on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence. In particular, he argues that Article 300.1 of the CC did not have sufficient clarity as to what constituted an overthrow of the constitutional order. It thus lacked sufficient precision and foreseeability in order to avoid the risk of arbitrariness. Moreover, it was applied retroactively. Furthermore, the facts and information on which the domestic courts relied did not meet the threshold of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed that offence.

2.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was kept in detention during trial without a fixed time-limit.

3.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention.

4.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the principle of adversarial proceedings was breached because the Criminal Court of Appeal deprived him of the opportunity to present his oral pleadings during the hearing of 20 June 2019.

5.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his applications for release of 26 and 27 June and 14 August 2019, as well as those of 16 and 24 March 2020 were not examined speedily by the courts.

6.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that on 2 September 2019 the Yerevan Court decided to leave his detention unchanged without hearing him and that the Criminal Court of Appeal, contrary to domestic case-law, refused to examine his appeal against that decision.

7.  The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that public officials made statements that breached his presumption of innocence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the applicant’s detention between 27 July to 13 August 2018, and between 7 December 2018 to 18 May 2019 on the basis of Article 300.1 of the Criminal Code in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his detention on the basis of that criminal provision lawful and based on a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 186, 28 November 2017, and Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 314-21 and 337, 22 December 2020)?

2.  Was the applicant’s detention between 25 June 2019 and 19 June 2020 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, having regard, in particular, to the fact that no time-limits were fixed to its duration (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 199; and Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 49, 15 June 2021)?

3.  Did the applicant’s detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s continued detention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87-91, 5 July 2016; Merabishvili, cited above, §§ 222-25; and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48-53, 20 October 2016)?

4.  Was the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention respected at the hearing of 20 June 2019 before the Criminal Court of Appeal (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 204, ECHR 2009; and Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 116, 26 June 2012)?

5.  Having regard to the period it took to decide on the applicant’s applications for release, can it be said that the speediness requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention was respected (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 254-56, 4 December 2018)?

6.  Was the decision of the Yerevan Court of 2 September 2019 taken in compliance with the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, taking into account that it was taken without holding a hearing (see Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 235, 31 May 2011)?

7.  Did the refusal by the Criminal Court of Appeal to examine the applicant’s appeal of 6 September 2019 against the Yerevan Court’s decision of 2 September 2019 breach his rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

8.  Did the applicant have at his disposal any effective remedies for the protection of his right to be presumed innocent? If so, has the applicant exhausted those remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to support their arguments with examples of domestic case-law.

9.  Was the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the statements of public officials amount to an infringement of the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence?

APPENDIX

List of applications