THIRD SECTION
Application no. 36469/08
Levon TER-PETROSYAN against Armenia
lodged on 30 August 2008
The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant removed forcibly from Freedom Square and then placed under house arrest on 1 March 2008? If so, did this amount to a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of this complaint? If so, did he exhaust the domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide all the necessary details of the applicant’s alleged removal from Freedom Square and house arrest, including the grounds for such measures, the exact nature and duration of restrictions imposed on the applicant, etc., and to submit any supporting evidence. The parties are further requested to provide a copy of the decision taken by the Constitutional Court on 4 March 2008 whereby the General Prosecutor’s Office was asked to clarify the circumstances of the applicant’s alleged house arrest and instructed to take measures to secure his presence in court (see paragraph 28 of the Decision) or, if such decision was taken orally, a copy of the record (արձանագրություն) and recording (ձայնագրություն և/կամ տեսագրություն) of the relevant hearing.
2. Did the applicant have an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the rally on 1 March 2008, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In the affirmative, has the applicant exhausted such remedies? If not, did the dispersal of the rally amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention? Furthermore, was there a violation of Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to submit all the relevant factual details concerning the demonstrations held between 20 February and 1 March 2008, including the manner in which they were triggered and the applicant’s exact involvement in them.
3. Was the applicant discriminated against on the ground of his political opinion, in violation of the guarantees of Article 14 of the Convention, in respect of the rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 as a result of his alleged house arrest, as well as in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention as a result of the dispersal of the rally on 1 March 2008?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy