CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1B434F12 { margin-left:9.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA09FA4ED { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:26.99pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.21pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s61A26A15 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7A11F50B { margin-left:6.52pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s36C5EC9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s296382C1 { width:178.61pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF JHANGIRYAN v. ARMENIA (Applications nos. 44841/08 and 63701/09)     JUDGMENT Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Arbitrary prosecution and conviction of opposition supporter, linked to his participation in a protest movement • Repetitive pattern of artificial and politically motivated arrests and prosecution of opposition activists Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Delay between deprivation of liberty and drawing up of record of arrest • Police custody in excess of maximum period prescribed by domestic law and without judicial order Art 5 § 1 (c) • Lack of reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed an offence Art 5 § 3 • Reasonableness of pre-trial detention • Failure of domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for applicant’s continued detention Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Impartial tribunal • Involvement of trial court judge’s son in an investigation of the protest movement   STRASBOURG 8 October 2020   FINAL   08/01/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jhangiryan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Aleš Pejchal,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Jovan Ilievski,   Raffaele Sabato, judges,   Armen Mazmanyan, ad hoc judge, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   44841/08 and 63701/09) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Gagik Jhangiryan (“the applicant”), on 16 July 2008 and 17 November 2009 respectively; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest, the alleged lack of a reasonable suspicion justifying his arrest, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention, the alleged lack of impartiality of the tribunal, the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and to freedom of peaceful assembly and the alleged discrimination on the basis of political opinion to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; the decision by the President of the Chamber to appoint Mr Armen Mazmanyan to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29 of the Rules of Court), Mr   Armen Harutyunyan, the judge elected in respect of Armenia, being unable to sit in the case (Rule 28); Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s arrest, including whether it was lawful and was based on a reasonable suspicion as required by Article   5 §   1   (c) of the Convention, the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention as required by Article 5 §   3 of the Convention, the alleged lack of impartiality of the tribunal in breach of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, and the allegation that the applicant’s prosecution and conviction were in breach of the requirements of Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Yerevan. The applicant was represented by Ms L. Sahakyan and Mr E. Varosyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan, and Mr A. Ghazaryan, a non-practising lawyer. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicant was at the material time the Deputy General Prosecutor of Armenia, a post which he had occupied since 17 January 2006. He also held the rank of First Category State Justice Councillor. In the past, he had also occupied different high-level posts, including the post of Military Prosecutor of Armenia. The 19 February 2008 presidential election and the post-election events 6.     On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia. The main contenders were the then Prime Minister, Mr Sargsyan, representing the ruling party, and the main opposition candidate, Mr Ter-Petrosyan. 7.     Immediately after the announcement of the preliminary results of the election, Mr Ter-Petrosyan called on his supporters to gather at Freedom Square in central Yerevan in order to protest against the irregularities which had allegedly occurred in the election process, announcing that the election had not been free and fair. From 20 February 2008 onwards, nationwide daily protest rallies were held by Mr Ter-Petrosyan’s supporters, their main meeting place being Freedom Square and the surrounding park. It appears that the rallies at Freedom Square attracted at times tens of thousands of people, while several hundred demonstrators stayed in that area around the clock, having set up a camp. 8 .     On 22 February 2008 the applicant made a speech at the rally held at Freedom Square in which he expressed his support for Mr   Ter ‑ Petrosyan and criticised the conduct of the presidential election, alleging various types of irregularities. He called on those gathered not to give up and to stand by their votes, saying that rule of law had to be finally established in Armenia. 9.     The applicant alleged that, following that speech, the authorities started persecuting him and his family members. 10.     On the same date the General Prosecutor applied to the President of Armenia seeking to have the applicant dismissed on the ground that he had participated in a rally and made a political speech, thereby violating the law which required prosecutors to maintain political neutrality and not to engage in political activities. 11.     On 23 February 2008 the President of Armenia issued two decrees dismissing the applicant from the post of Deputy General Prosecutor and depriving him of his rank. The criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant’s arrest 12.     According to the applicant, on 23 February 2008 at around 10   p.m. he, his brother, V.J., and four others had been travelling from Ejmiatsin to Yerevan in two cars. After stopping at the intersection near Argavand village, they had been attacked by a group of masked and armed persons. Those persons had crashed their unmarked vehicle into the front of their car, come out of it and, firing their guns, had surrounded the car. He had surrendered himself and his weapon to those persons and had been taken into their car. Then those persons had tried to take V.J., who suffered from spinal tuberculosis and had mobility problems, out of the car. The attackers had started to break the car window and, as V.J. opened the door, had hit him in the face with a pistol grip, pulled him out of the car and thrown him to the ground, ignoring the warnings about V.J.’s spinal disease. The attackers had continued shooting and injured V.J. Then the applicant, his brother and two others, together with their cars, were taken into police custody. 13 .     According to an announcement made on the same day on the website of the Armenian police entitled “Gagik Jhangiryan is in custody”, operative information had been received at the Principal Department for the Fight against Organised Crime (hereafter, the PDFOC) that the persons driving two cars (with indication of licence plates) had been armed and intended to destabilise the situation in Yerevan. At around 11   p.m. the above-mentioned cars had been pulled over near Argavand intersection by PDFOC officers who, during an inspection, encountered resistance from the persons in the cars, as a result of which one of the police officers had accidentally fired his service gun, inflicting light injuries on two other police officers and V.J., who had put up resistance. The persons in question, including the applicant, V.J. and two other persons accompanying them, had been taken to the PDFOC. A CZ-75-type pistol had been found in the applicant’s possession and two other pistols in the possession of V.J. and one of the other two persons. 14 .     According to the “record of bringing a person in”, the applicant was “brought in” to the PDFOC on 23 February 2008 at around 11.30 p.m. from the intersection of Isakov Avenue and Argavand village by PDFOC officers G.G., A.M. and R.M. “on suspicion of illegal possession, carrying and transportation of arms and ammunition, and for showing resistance to police officers”. The applicant refused to sign the record. 15.     On the same day the car accompanying the applicant was searched at the PDFOC and a Browning-type pistol was found, which also belonged to him. 16.     On the same day a number of PDFOC officers filed reports with the chief of the PDFOC as follows. 17.     Several officers who had participated in the police operation described the circumstances of that operation, including how V.J. had allegedly put up resistance and punched officer R.M. in the face. 18 .     One officer reported, in particular, that during the above police operation a CZ-75 B-type pistol had been retrieved, which had a serial number and had been issued to the applicant on 30 July 2003 for an indefinite period of time. 19.     Two officers, A.H. and T.A., reported that, while they were taking the applicant inside the PDFOC building, the applicant, in the courtyard of that building, had disobeyed their lawful orders, punched officer A.H., torn officer T.A.’s uniform, used swear words and made threats of retribution against them and their families. 20.     Several officers reported that, while in the lobby of the PDFOC building, the applicant and his brother had disobeyed the orders of police officers, used swear words and made threats. 21.     The applicant contested the above account of events and denied having assaulted the officers in question. He alleged that, at the time of his arrival at the PDFOC, several hundred police officers had been present in the courtyard of the building and any resistance would have been pointless. He further alleged that, in fact, it had been he and his brother who had been ill-treated by police officers in the lobby of the PDFOC. The police officers had thrown them to the ground and started kicking and punching them. When he had pleaded with them not to hit V.J. because of his spinal disease, they had started hitting V.J. even more vigorously, aiming at his spine. 22.     On 24 February 2008, at an unspecified time, a criminal case was instituted under Article 316 § 2 (life or health-threatening assault on a public official) of the Criminal Code (CC) on account of V.J.’s alleged use of violence against the police officers. 23 .     On the same date at 1.10 a.m. a PDFOC investigator, within the framework of the instituted criminal case, drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest, indicating “1.10 a.m.” as the time of the applicant’s arrest and stating that the applicant was arrested on suspicion of illegal acquisition, possession and carrying of arms and ammunition, as provided for by Article 235 § 1 of the CC. In particular, on 23 February 2008 a CZ ‑ 75 B-type pistol had been found in his possession, together with 14 cartridges. 24 .     Later on the same day another criminal case was instituted under Article 235 § 1 of the CC (illegal acquisition, possession or carrying of arms and ammunition) in respect of the applicant, which was joined with the first case, alleging that the applicant, in unknown circumstances, had illegally acquired from an unidentified person a Browning-type pistol loaded with 9   mm cartridges which he had illegally kept in the VAZ 21010 car accompanying him on 23 February 2008 and which had later been found during the inspection of that car. 25.     The investigator took statements from a number of police officers who confirmed the information provided earlier in their reports. Officers A.H. and T.A. described, in particular, how the applicant had refused to step out of the car and how they had had to apply force in order to take him inside the PDFOC building, during which he had punched officer A.H., torn officer T.A.’s uniform, used swear words and made threats. No questions were posed by the investigator. 26.     The Browning pistol was subjected to a forensic examination which concluded on 26 February 2008 that a digit had been added at the end of the serial number, engraved by hand. The applicant alleged that this had been done by the police officers after the seizure of the pistol, which he had possessed and carried legally, in order to create the appearance of an illegal nature of that pistol. Charges against the applicant and his detention 27 .     On 26 February 2008 the applicant was formally charged under Articles 235 § 1 and 316 §   1 (non-life or health-threatening assault on a public official) of the CC. As regards the charge under Article 235 § 1, it was stated that the applicant, under circumstances yet to be disclosed, had illegally obtained a firearm, namely a 9 mm Browning pistol, together with its cartridges, which he had illegally kept in the car accompanying him. As regards the charge under Article 316 §   1 it was stated that, after being taken to the PDFOC on a suspicion of illegally carrying a firearm, the applicant, while in the courtyard of the PDFOC building, disobeying the lawful orders of the PDFOC officers to step out of the police car and to enter the building, had punched officer A.H. in the shoulder, as a result of which the officer had fallen down. Then the applicant had pulled and torn the uniform of another officer, T.A., refused to enter the building and threatened the officers with violence and retribution. 28.     On 27 February 2008 at 3.30 a.m. the applicant was brought before the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, which examined the investigator’s application seeking to have him detained for a period of two months on the ground that he might abscond, evade criminal responsibility, obstruct the proceedings and commit an offence. 29.     The applicant submitted before the District Court that the charges against him were unsubstantiated. In particular, the Browning pistol was a registered and licensed weapon and was legally owned by him. It was not his responsibility if there had been a mix-up with its registration number. Furthermore, he had voluntarily surrendered his CZ-75 pistol to the police officers during the raid and, in any event, all the weapons found in his and others’ possession were legal. After arriving at the PDFOC, he had been met by a large crowd of police officers who forcibly took him inside the building; therefore the allegations of resistance or violence on his part were nonsense. In any event, there was no reason to believe that he, a former Deputy Prosecutor General, would obstruct the investigation or abscond, while the gravity of the charges alone could not justify his detention. 30 .     The District Court decided to allow the investigator’s application, finding that the circumstances of the case and the evidence obtained provided sufficient reasons to believe that, if the applicant remained at large, he could commit a new offence, abscond or obstruct the proceedings. 31.     On 3 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia , that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion since he had possessed and carried the Browning pistol legally and he had never used violence against officers A.H. and T.A. Furthermore, the District Court’s decision was unreasoned since the risks of his absconding or obstructing the investigation had not been substantiated. 32 .     On 7 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a reasonable suspicion, from the materials submitted, that the applicant had committed the imputed offences and that the District Court’s decision to detain the applicant was well-reasoned. The events of 1-2 March 2008, institution of criminal proceedings and joinder of the applicant’s case to those proceedings 33.     On 1 March 2008 in the early morning a police operation was conducted on Freedom Square where several hundred demonstrators were camping, as a result of which Freedom Square was cleared of all demonstrators, resulting in clashes between the demonstrators and the police. 34 .     On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted regarding the events at Freedom Square on the grounds that the leaders of the opposition and their supporters had organised unlawful demonstrations, incited disobedience and committed violence against the police (for further details see Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia , no. 23086/08, § 15, 20 September 2018). 35.     It appears that, later that day, the situation in Yerevan deteriorated and the rallies continued in a number of streets until the early morning of 2   March, involving clashes between protesters and law enforcement officers and resulting in ten deaths, including eight civilians, numerous injured and a state of emergency being declared by the President of Armenia. 36 .     On 2 March 2008 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted on the grounds that the leaders of the opposition and their supporters had organised mass disorder in the streets of Yerevan, including murders, violence and other reprehensible acts (ibid., § 17). 37.     On the same date both sets of proceedings were joined and examined under no. 62202608. 38 .     On 7 March 2008 the investigator decided to join the applicant’s criminal case to case no.   62202608. Extension of the applicant’s detention and a new charge against him 39 .     On 18 April the District Court extended the applicant’s detention by two months finding that, if the applicant remained at large, he could abscond or obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful pressure on the persons involved in the proceedings, concealing or falsifying materials essential for the case or in some other way. 40.     On 23 April 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia , that the District Court’s decision was unreasoned and the risks of his absconding or obstructing the investigation were unsubstantiated. 41 .     On 8 May 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Court’s decision to extend the applicant’s detention was well-reasoned. 42 .     On 6 June 2008 the investigator questioned the applicant, in the main asking him to explain the speech he had made at Freedom Square on 22   February 2008. 43 .     On 13 June 2008 the charge of illegal possession of a weapon under Article 235 § 1 of the CC was dropped on the ground that the applicant had a licence to keep and carry the Browning pistol and it had not been possible to establish the circumstances under which the extra digit had been added to the serial number. At the same time, a new charge was brought against the applicant under Article 300 § 1 of the CC (usurpation of power) on the ground that he, following the 19 February 2008 presidential election, had joined Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his followers in masterminding and taking actions seeking to usurp power. In particular, the applicant, using his standing as Deputy General Prosecutor, had participated in discrediting the conduct of the election, casting doubt on its lawfulness among the international community, instilling distrust towards the results among large segments of the population, creating illusions of public discontent and revolt, and organising and conducting unlawful mass rallies aimed at destabilising the political situation in the country. He had planned and taken actions seeking to isolate lawful public officials, force them to resign and exercise power in their stead, and made public speeches and calls of a provocative nature aimed at usurping state power. 44 .     On the same date the investigator requested that the applicant’s detention be extended, taking into account, inter alia , the fact that it was a voluminous and complex criminal case which required further numerous investigative measures and that, beside the applicant, a number of other individuals were accused under Article 300 of the CC, including some who were in hiding. 45 .     On 19 June 2008 the District Court, taking into account the nature and the gravity of the imputed offences, extended the applicant’s detention by two more months on the ground that, if the applicant remained at large, he could abscond, obstruct the proceedings by exerting pressure on the persons involved in the proceedings and, by his actions, hinder the further disclosure of the circumstances of the case. 46.     On 23 June 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia , that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion and that the District Court had failed to provide any reasons in support of its finding that he might abscond or obstruct the proceedings. 47 .     On 2 July 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that there was a reasonable suspicion from the materials submitted that the applicant had committed an offence and that the District Court’s decision to extend the applicant’s detention was well ‑ reasoned. 48 .     On 13 August 2008 the charge of usurpation of power under Article   300 § 1 of the CC was dropped for lack of sufficient evidence. It was stated that numerous investigative measures had been taken but no new evidence of the applicant’s participation in usurpation of state power had been obtained. 49.     On the same day the applicant’s criminal case was disjoined from case no. 62202608. 50.     On 22 August 2008 the investigation into the applicant’s criminal case was completed and the case was referred to the District Court for trial. The court proceedings 51 .     On 22 August 2008 Judge Z.V. of the District Court decided to take over the applicant’s criminal case and to set the case down for trial, ruling that the applicant’s preventive measure was to remain unchanged. 52 .     On 1 September 2008 Judge Z.V. examined a challenge lodged by the applicant seeking that the judge recuse himself from the examination of the case for lack of impartiality because his son, A.V., who worked as an investigator, was a member of the investigative team entrusted with the investigation of the case. Judge Z.V. noted at the outset that he was aware that his son had been a member of the relevant investigative team. However, since his son had not performed or taken part in any investigative measure carried out in respect of the applicant during the investigation of the case, the judge found that he could still conduct an impartial examination since the fact that his son was a member of the investigative team did not in itself give rise to a reasonable doubt as regards his impartiality. Besides, domestic law did not envisage the fact of involvement of a family member in the investigation of a case as a ground for recusal of a judge. 53 .     On 11 February 2009 the judge examined and dismissed a request lodged by the applicant seeking to be released, finding that it was still necessary to keep the applicant in detention. 54.     During the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty and submitted that he had not put up any resistance during the police operation. Having arrived at the courtyard of the PDFOC building, he had seen around 200 to 300 people gathered there. He had then got out of the car and, together with the persons accompanying him, entered the PDFOC building. His arrest had been effected by ten masked persons who had attacked him and his brother and subjected them to ill-treatment both at the time of arrest and in the lobby of the PDFOC building. 55.     Police officer A.H. testified that on 23 February 2008 at about 11.30   p.m., while at work, he had received an instruction to accompany an arrested person from the courtyard into the lobby and to hand him over to the officers of the criminal intelligence unit. The same instruction had been given to his colleague, T.A. As they approached the van parked in the courtyard, the police officers had quickly got out of the vehicle and entered the building. As T.A. opened the van door, they had recognised the applicant and requested that he step out of the vehicle. The applicant had disobeyed and tried to kick them but they had managed to take him out forcibly and, holding him by the arms, had walked towards the building. At that moment the applicant had managed to free his right hand and punch him in the shoulder, as a result of which he had lost his balance and fallen down. As T.A. intervened, the applicant, while making threats and swearing at them and their family members, had pulled and torn a pocket on T.A.’s uniform. Then they had taken the applicant inside the building by forcibly twisting his arms, and handed him over to the officers of the criminal intelligence unit. 56.     Police officer T.A. gave similar testimony. 57.     A number of other PDFOC officers also testified in court. Seven of them stated that the applicant had used swear words and made threats in the lobby of the PDFOC, while fourteen of them, who had overseen and/or participated in the police operation near Argavand village, including G.G., A.M. and R.M., described the circumstances of that operation stating, inter alia , that after arriving at the PDFOC they had been greeted by officers A.H. and T.A., and had immediately entered the building to report the incident. 58.     The applicant requested that a number of persons be summoned as witnesses, including four MPs, Z.P., A.I., A.Sak. and A.D., and three other opposition supporters, S.A., V.K. and A.Sis. As regards the first four, the applicant claimed that they had visited him in the remand prison on 27   February 2008 and witnessed his bodily injuries sustained as a result of ill-treatment in police custody. As for the last three, the applicant argued that they had also been taken and kept at the PDFOC on 24 February 2008 and allegedly possessed certain information regarding what had happened there the day before, including being told by police officers that the applicant and his brother had been beaten on the previous day and overhearing the police officers discussing the case as being “trumped up” against the applicant. The requests were dismissed by the District Court. 59.     On 23 March 2009 the District Court, sitting in a single judge formation composed of Judge Z.V., found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The District Court found it to be established as follows: “... on 23 February 2008 at around 11.30 p.m. [the applicant], having been brought in to the courtyard of [the PDFOC] upon a suspicion of carrying illegal firearms and ammunition, disobeying the lawful orders of public officials, namely the police officers, who were performing their official duties, and inflicting non-life or health ‑ threatening violence on them, punched and caused pain to police officer [A.H.], whereupon he pulled and tore the uniform of an employee of the same department, [T.A.], refusing to enter [the PDFOC] building and at the same time threatening the police officers and their families with physical retribution ...” 60.     The District Court, in examining the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest near Argavand village, also found it to be established that the applicant had voluntarily given up his CZ-75 B-type pistol and that all the weapons retrieved during the police operation, including those belonging to the applicant, had been found, following an inspection, to have been possessed and carried legally. 61.     In reaching the above findings, the District Court relied on the statements of police officers A.H. and T.A., and other officers who had testified in court. As material evidence the District Court cited officer T.A.’s torn uniform. The applicant’s submissions and arguments were found to be unsubstantiated. 62.     On 16 April 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia , that the District Court had failed to assess properly the evidence, dismissed his submissions and refused his requests seeking to prove his innocence and based its findings solely on the testimony of the police officers. He also alleged that the true reason for his prosecution and conviction was to punish him for the speech he had made at the opposition rally on 22 February 2008, arguing that he had thereby been discriminated against on the basis of his political views. He also argued that Judge Z.V. had not been impartial because of the involvement of his son in the investigative team. 63.     On 20 May 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court and dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the arguments contained therein were unfounded. 64.     On 19 June 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 65.     On 14 July 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit. 66.     In the meantime, on 22 June 2009, the applicant was released under amnesty. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 67.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law, as well as of the relevant international materials, see Mushegh Saghatelyan (cited above, §§   91-134) and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 629/11, §§ 30-37, 20   October 2016). A number of provisions of domestic law and extracts from international materials which were not quoted in those judgments provide as follows. Relevant domestic law Criminal Code (2003) 68.     Article 300 § 1, as in force at the material time, provided that usurpation of State power, namely actions aimed at violent seizure of State power or its violent retention in violation of the Constitution, as well as violent overthrow of the constitutional order of Armenia or violent breach of the territorial integrity of Armenia, was punishable by imprisonment for a period from ten to fifteen years. Code of Criminal Procedure (1999) 69.     Article 90 § 1(3), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “A judge is obliged to recuse himself if he is aware of facts or circumstances capable of raising a reasonable doubt as regards his impartiality in a particular case. Grounds for recusal include, inter alia , cases where ... a judge or his spouse or a person having kinship with him of up to the third degree may reasonably become (or has reasons to believe that he will become) a participant in the proceedings or has participated in the proceedings at a lower instance as a judge or as a participant in the proceedings. A person’s children, parents, sisters and brothers are considered as having kinship of the first degree with him, within the meaning of this Article. ...” Relevant international materials Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) 70 .     On 15 April 2008 the PACE Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe produced the Report on the Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Armenia (Doc. 11579). The relevant parts from the Explanatory Memorandum to this Report, produced by the co-rapporteurs, provide: “10.     The opposition received a boost in support when a number of high-level state officials publicly denounced the election as fraudulent and announced their support for Mr Levon Ter-Petrosyan. These officials were subsequently dismissed from their positions and a number of them, as well as several opposition activists, were arrested on seemingly artificial charges, which left the impression that their prosecution was politically motivated. According to the Helsinki Association of Armenia, a total of 14   persons were arrested and placed under investigation in the period from 20 to 29   February 2008.” Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) 71 .     Between April 2008 and June 2009 the OSCE/ODIHR conducted a monitoring project of about a hundred trials of opposition leaders and supporters related to the events of 1-2 March 2008, which included the applicant’s case under number 94. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 72.     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 5 OF THE CONVENTION 73.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his initial arrest had been firstly unlawful and, secondly, had not been based on a reasonable suspicion. He also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention. Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.] ... 3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” Admissibility 74.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of the complaint regarding the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and the complaint regarding his continued detention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Firstly, he had failed to contest the detention order of 27 February 2008 before the Court of Cassation in compliance with the relevant rules. Secondly, he had had a possibility to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest before the courts under Articles 103 and 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which he had not done either. 75.     The applicant submitted that an appeal to the Court of Cassation would not have been an effective remedy because it would have no prospects of success. 76.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before an international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and   29   others, § 70, 25 March 2014). The Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed similar objections of non ‑ exhaustion by the Government in other cases against Armenia (see Arzumanyan v. Armenia , no.   25935/08, §§   28-32, 11   January 2018; and Mushegh Saghatelyan , cited above, §§   176 ‑ 177). Given that the Government have not adduced any new elements, it sees no reasons in the present case to depart from its earlier findings and therefore dismisses the Government’s objections. 77.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (a)    Circumstances surrounding the applicant’s arrest prior to the District Court’s detention order of 27 February 2008 78.     The applicant submitted that his deprivation of liberty prior to the detention order of 27 February 2008 had been unlawful on two grounds. Firstly, he had initially been deprived of his liberty under the “bringing-in” procedure. However, neither of the two Articles of the CCP prescribing that procedure, namely Articles 153 and 180, had been applicable in his case. He had not been considered arrested until the record of his arrest had been drawn up some time later, after being taken into custody. Thus, his initial deprivation of liberty had been unlawful. Secondly, he had been kept in police custody in excess of the maximum 72-hour period allowed by law. In particular, he had been taken into custody at 11.30 p.m. on 23 February 2008 but brought before a judge only at 3.30 a.m. on 27 February 2008. The reasons brought by the Government to justify the breach of domestic law were not acceptable. 79.     The Government submitted that the delay in bringing the applicant before a court had been justified by the complexity of the case, the existence of co-accused and a number of formalities which had made it impossible to do so earlier. 80.     The Court reiterates that an arrest or detention under sub ‑ paragraph   (c) must, like any deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, be “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. Those two expressions, which overlap to an extent, refer essentially to domestic law and lay down the obligation to comply with its substantive and procedural rules (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no.   72508/13, §   186, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). 81.     The Court notes that it has already examined identical complaints in a case against Armenia and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Mushegh Saghatelyan , cited above, §§ 166-174). In the present case, the applicant similarly was taken into custody at around 11.30   p.m. on 23 February 2008 but was considered arrested only from 1.10   a.m. on 24 February 2008, when a record of his arrest was drawn up, remaining in a state of uncertainty during that period as to his personal liberty and security. He was taken before a judge only at 3.30 a.m. on 27   February 2008, thereby remaining in police custody in excess of the maximum 72-hour period permitted by domestic law. The Court therefore has no reasons to depart from its earlier findings and concludes that the initial hours of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and his continued arrest without a judicial order for the time exceeding the 72-hour period prescribed by law were unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 82.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on that ground. (b)    The alleged lack of a reasonable suspicion for the applicant’s arrest 83.     The applicant submitted that the grounds for his arrest, as indicated in the record of his arrest of 24 February 2008, namely the illegal acquisition, possession and carrying of a CZ-75-B-type pistol, had not been based on a reasonable suspicion since he had held a licence for that weapon and that fact had been known to the police. The same applied to the Browning-type pistol. As regards the Government’s submissions, the operative information referred to had never been produced in the course of the trial. In reality, no such information had ever existed and the only purpose pursued by the police had not been to carry out an arrest based on a reasonable suspicion but to punish and to isolate the applicant for having made a speech at an opposition rally. As to the alleged assault on police officers, this had allegedly happened only after he had been “brought to the police” so this could not have served as a basis for taking him into custody. 84.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s arrest had been based on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence. Firstly, on 23   February 2008 operative information had been received by the police from a covert informer that armed people were driving the two cars in question from Ejmiatsin to Yerevan with the intention of destabilising the situation in the country. An operative team had set off to verify that information and, after the cars had been stopped for an inspection, a CZ-75 B-type pistol had been found in the applicant’s possession and a Browning ‑ type pistol in the car accompanying him. Later, after the applicant had been “brought to the police”, he had assaulted and threatened two police officers. Thus, there had been sufficient grounds to arrest the applicant. 85.     The Court reiterates that the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention laid down in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. This requires the existence of some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence, though what may be regarded as reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom , 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182, and Rasul   Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, § 116, 17 March 2016). 86 .     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that no arrest warrant was issued in respect of the applicant, while the only two formal documents related to the applicant’s police custody, namely the record of the applicant’s bringing-in and the record of his arrest, contained almost none of the grounds indicated by the Government and, in any event, contained very little detail. Thus, the record of the applicant’s bringing-in was couched in very abstract terms and contained no references to any provisions of criminal law or any factual details or evidence regarding the alleged offences (see paragraph 14 above), while the record of the applicant’s arrest of 24 February 2008, which served as the sole formal basis for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty until a detention order was issued by the District Court on 27 February 2008, indicated the possession of a CZ-75 B-type pistol as the only ground for the applicant’s arrest (see paragraph 23 above). No further factual details of the suspected offence were provided, including as to why it was believed that the pistol in question was possessed by the applicant illegally, or any evidence which could give rise to that suspicion. 87 .     The Court further refers to the applicant’s allegation, which the Government did not explicitly dispute, that the police had been aware at the time of his arrest of the fact that he had held a licence to possess and carry the pistol in question. Indeed, it follows from the materials of the case that this information had been known to the arresting officers, although it is not clear when exactly it came to light: during the police operation or upon verification conducted at the PDFOC (see paragraph 18 above). In any event, it is safe to assume that, at the very latest when the applicant’s record of arrest was drawn up, this information was already available to the police.