Communicated on 17 November 2011 and 23 March 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no 17521/09
Vardan TEYMURAZYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 23 March 2009
The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.
QUESTIONS
1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to explain what are the available and effective remedies to exhaust within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of a substantive complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (e.g. criminal, civil, etc.) and whether the applicant exhausted such remedies and lodged his complaint within six months from the date of the final decision.
The Government are specifically requested to explain whether the civil claims for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages for the ill-treatment sustained, filed by the applicant on 11 September 2007 and 26 February 2009, were an effective remedy for the above-mentioned purpose. They are requested to specify in this regard, submitting examples of domestic judicial practice, whether the applicant’s civil claims had any prospects of success in view of the lack of a criminal investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment and given that the fact of his ill-treatment had been confirmed by the judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 16 February 2006.
They are further requested to specify the outcome of the applicant’s civil claim for pecuniary damages filed on 26 February 2009 and to submit copies of the decision of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 2 June 2009 to admit that claim and all other relevant judicial judgments/decisions taken in those proceedings, and the applicant’s appeals, if any.
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his substantive complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in view of the fact that no compensation for non-pecuniary damage was available to him under the Armenian law?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Has the applicant exhausted all the effective domestic remedies in this respect and lodged his complaint within six months from the date of the final decision, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
The Government are further requested to submit copies of the following documents:
- the decision of 13 April 2005 to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant;
- the applicant’s statements and/or complaints containing his allegations of ill-treatment;
- the applicant’s complaint of 27 November 2007 against the investigator’s decision of 21 June 2005.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy