CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29048B37 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s327CD7AC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s915ECF9D { width:130.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ISHKHANYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 5297/16)   JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 1 • Applicant’s arrest after the dispersal of a sit-in demonstration blocking a main public road in protest against a rise in electricity prices • Being under the exclusive control of the police for over seven hours in case circumstances amounted to a deprivation of liberty • No justification for arrest under Art   5 §   1 (b) • Arrest conducted en masse without an individualised assessment of any criminality in the applicant’s actions and without a reasonable suspicion of him having committed an offence in breach of Art   5 §   1 (c) • Placement in police custody did not follow a procedure prescribed by law as no arrest record was drawn up for the period he was a de facto arrestee   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 13 February 2025   FINAL   13/05/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ishkhanyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar, President ,   María Elósegui,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 5297/16) 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 Hovhannes Ishkhanyan (“the applicant”), on 23 December 2015; the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints raised under Articles 3 (keeping him in police custody in wet clothes and with no time to rest), 5 § 1 and 11 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the dispersal of a mass sit-in demonstration and the applicant’s subsequent arrest following its dispersal. The applicant invoked Articles 3, 5 § 1, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Yerevan. He was represented by Mr R. Revazyan and Mr A. Zeynalyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Protest rallies against the rise in electricity prices (Electric Yerevan protests) 5 .     On 8 May 2015 the Electric Networks of Armenia (a closed joint-stock company) (“the ENA”) – at the material time, the sole electricity supplier in Armenia – lodged an application with the Public Services’ Regulatory Commission (“the PSRC”) seeking authorisation to increase electricity prices by 17 Armenia drams (AMD) per kilowatt hour. 6 .     On 17 June 2015 the PSRC decided to permit the price of electricity to be raised by 6.93 AMD, with effect from 1 August 2015. 7 .     Protest rallies flared up in response to this decision. In particular, from 19 June 2015 protests were organised in Yerevan’s Freedom Square by a civic initiative ( քաղաքացիական նախաձեռնություն ) known as “No to Plunder” ( Ոչ թալանին ). The demonstrators gave the authorities seventy-two hours to suspend the decision of the PSRC. 8 .     Uninterrupted live media coverage of the assembly (archived live coverage can still be viewed on YouTube) of 22 June 2015 recorded the following [1] . On 22 June 2015, at about 6.30 p.m., the demonstrators, who, according to the findings of a later investigation conducted by the Special Investigative Service (“SIS”) (see paragraphs 17 and 29 below), numbered around one thousand, marched from Freedom Square to the President’s offices, but were stopped by a police cordon in front of 1 Baghramyan Avenue, where a large number of armed police had been deployed. The demonstrators eventually decided to hold a sit-in on the road until the decision of the PSRC was suspended by the President. The traffic on Baghramyan Avenue was completely brought to a halt. The then chief of the Yerevan police (A.K.) and his deputy (V.O.) began to negotiate with the demonstrators. They conveyed to them the message of the President that the latter was ready to receive a delegation of five demonstrators to discuss their concerns. They repeated this offer a number of times, arguing that this would allow the matter to be addressed, while at the same time avoiding any potential escalation of the situation. The police pointed out several times that the demonstrators had disrupted traffic on Bagharamyan Avenue (one of the main thoroughfares of Yerevan) – thus breaching public order; they also pointed out that they had failed to comply with the requirement that notification be submitted in advance for any demonstration, and that their failure (as the de facto organisers of the demonstration) to comply with this requirement had left them liable under Article 180 1 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”; see paragraph 57 below). The police also informed the demonstrators that they would permit them to return to Freedom Square and to continue their protest there unhindered. The demonstrators, however, were adamant that they would clear the road only if the decision of the PSRC was suspended by the President. They started singing patriotic songs, chanting slogans, and reciting poems. They only stopped making a noise at about between 12.30 and 1 a.m., after receiving several warnings from the police to desist from creating a noise nuisance during night-time “quiet hours”. 9 .     On 22 June 2015 the prosecution opened criminal case no.   14203515 under Article 258 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 44 below). Consequently, the relevant subdivision of the Investigative Committee of Armenia (“IC”) opened an investigation given the fact that from 7.30 p.m. an unlawful and lengthy demonstration, march and sit-in had been organised on Baghramyan Avenue, during which the protesters had obstructed traffic, had caused a noise nuisance, had breached the freedom of movement and constitutional rights of others, and had grossly disrupted public order. It appears, however, that this information was made public only on the following day. The Court was not provided with the relevant decision. 10 .     The above-mentioned YouTube coverage further suggests that the demonstration was conducted in a leaderless, non-hierarchical fashion. Apart from a single incident of bottle-throwing, which was criticised by the organisers on the spot, it does not appear that the demonstrators engaged in any acts of violence. In fact, at a certain point during the demonstration, V.O. himself stated in front of the assembled journalists that the demonstration was peaceful. However, a short time later senior police officers, including V.O., informed the demonstrators that their conduct comprised elements of criminal offence – namely, hooliganism (see paragraph 44 below). 11 .     The demonstrators kept the road blocked for about ten hours – some of them even sleeping on the road. On 23 June 2015, at about 5 a.m., the deputy chief of the Yerevan police, V.O., addressed the protesters – who, according to the findings of the later investigation (see paragraphs 17 and 29 below), numbered around five hundred – over a loudspeaker. He ordered them to cease immediately their unlawful actions and to move their protest to Freedom Square or any other location chosen by them (as long as it was not a busy street); otherwise, the police would resort to physical force and “special means” ( հատուկ միջոցներ ) (see paragraph 73 below). The demonstrators whistled at him in response and linked arms to create a “human shield”, with their backs to the police cordon. He repeated this demand about five minutes later, giving the demonstrators ten minutes to disperse. A water ‑ cannon vehicle slowly approached the demonstrators after V.O.’s announcement. According to the findings of the above-noted investigation, about ten minutes later the police fired (simultaneously) two water jets from a water cannon into the centre of the rally [2] . The water jets knocked down the protesters, flinging some of them aside. The demonstrators nevertheless remained on the street, and some of them even stood up and raised their middle fingers at the police. Shortly afterwards, with the water cannon still firing, plain-clothes officers – some wearing armbands bearing the word “Police” – and officers in police uniform stepped in and began forcibly separating and arresting the demonstrators, some of whom tried to resist, and tension escalated. Measures employed by the police included pushing protesters to the ground, twisting their hands, dragging them across the ground and forcing them into police vans [3] . Eventually, the police broke up the protest and cleared the road, arresting the demonstrators [4] . According to the findings of the investigation, some of the protesters fled and gathered in Freedom Square, but they were arrested too. 12 .     According to the above-noted investigation (see paragraphs 17 and 29 below), more than two hundred participants in the demonstration, including the applicant, were taken to different police stations on suspicion of having committed the crime of hooliganism. The demonstrators were then questioned by investigators of the IC as witnesses within the framework of criminal case no. 14203515 (see paragraph 9 above) and were required to submit to two tests for, respectively, alcohol and drugs. None of them was charged with any criminal offence and all were released by the evening of the same day (see paragraph 19 below). 13.     The event was widely reported by the international media and some international organisations decried the use of force to break up the demonstration, calling on the national authorities to undertake a thorough investigation into the incident (see paragraphs 88-89 below). 14.     On an unspecified date criminal case no. 14203515 (see paragraph 9 above) was closed for lack of corpus delicti in respect of the actions of the demonstrators. According to the applicant’s submissions (uncontested by the Government), the relevant decision was taken on 26 October 2015. 15 .     On the evening of 23 June 2015 several thousand people gathered at the site of the dispersed rally and sit-in demonstrations continued on Baghramyan Avenue until 6 July 2015, halting traffic on Baghramyan Avenue. A smaller sit-in protest was held in September. THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE ABOVE-NOTED EVENTS 16 .     On 23 June 2015 the police opened an internal investigation into the lawfulness of the actions of the police when dispersing the sit-in protest. As a result, disciplinary measures were imposed on twelve police officers. In addition, the investigation revealed that on 23 June 2015 eleven police officers were injured [5] . The investigation was suspended following the opening of criminal case no. 62217915 (see paragraph 17 below). 17 .     On 2 July 2015 the SIS opened criminal case no. 62217915 under Articles 164 § 2 (Obstruction of lawful professional activity of journalist by a public official through abuse of official position), 185 § 1 (Deliberate destruction or damaging of property) and 309 § 2 (Exceeding one’s official authority – see paragraph 46 below) of the Criminal Code. In particular, information was obtained indicating that persons engaged in undertaking special services for the State involved in the dispersal of the sit-in demonstration of 23 June 2015, and of those held on the following days, had subjected demonstrators and a number of journalists to violence that had caused injuries, and had damaged or destroyed journalists’ equipment. 18.     On 6 July 2015 the SIS asked the police about the circumstances of the dispersal of the sit-in demonstration of 23 June 2015 and whether any internal procedure had been instituted in an effort to establish whether the actions of the police had been lawful. 19 .     On 29 July 2015 the deputy chief of police replied that the organisers of the demonstration had failed to comply with the requirement to submit prior notification for any demonstration. As a result, the police had not been informed of, inter alia , the location of the start of the demonstration and its destination, the times of the start and the end of the demonstration, and the route of the march and its timeframe. Immediately after the unlawful protest march, the police had informed the organisers that they had committed an administrative offence under Article 180 1 § 1 of the CAO (see paragraph 57 below); the police had done this in an attempt to bring the conduct of the demonstration into line with the law and in order to influence the behaviour of the demonstrators, but to no avail. From 7 p.m. onwards the demonstrators had blocked Baghramyan Avenue by staging a sit-in on the road. The police had started negotiations: in particular, they had suggested that the organisers send a delegation to meet with the President of the Republic. The proposal had been dismissed. Thereafter, the police had demanded that the demonstrators open Baghramyan Avenue to traffic and return to Freedom Square. That proposal had also been rejected because of the influence exerted by the organisers on the demonstrators. From 19 June 2015 until the dispersal of the sit-in on 23 June 2015 at 5.30 a.m., the police had not interfered with the conduct of the demonstration, had not used force and had not held the organisers administratively liable under Article 180 1 § 1 of the CAO. Rather, the police had continued to ensure public order and the safety of the demonstrators, thus complying with the provisions of section 32(2) of the Freedom of Assemblies Act (see paragraph 66 below). As a result of the unlawful demonstration, the traffic on Bagharmyan Avenue had been brought to a halt, causing serious disruption to traffic on other streets as well. In addition, two dozen complaints had been lodged by residents of the neighbouring buildings about the disruption to traffic and the noise nuisance caused by the protesters during night-time “quiet hours”. Taking into account the lasting nature of the demonstration, the fact that the organisers and demonstrators had breached, respectively, sections 28 and 29 of the Freedom of Assemblies Act (see paragraphs 64 and 65 below), and the need to end the disproportionate restriction on the right of road users to freedom of movement, the police – pursuant to section 33 of that Act (see paragraphs 67 and 68 below) – had warned the demonstrators twice: they had given them ten minutes to end the demonstration voluntarily; otherwise they would disperse it – including by the use of force or “special means”. The demonstration had been dispersed in the manner prescribed by section 34 of the Act (see paragraph 69 below). The protesters had thoroughly exercised their right to voice their demands and “further exercise of that right was disproportionately limiting to the public interest – that is, the need to protect public order”. The police had dispersed the sit-in at dawn (namely, at 5.30   a.m.), when the number of demonstration participants on the Avenue would be relatively small. Pursuant to section 31(1)(2) and (7) of the Police Act (see paragraph 74 below), “special means” – namely, a water cannon – had been employed to disperse the protest. The deputy chief of police added that after the dispersal of the rally some of the protesters had left the area, but that others had gathered in the area adjacent to Freedom Square, calling for a return to Baghramyan Avenue. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 2(1)(2) and 11(1)(1) of the Police Act (see paragraphs 70 and 71 below), the protesters had been taken into police custody in order for their identities to be established and for it to be determined whether their actions could be categorised as hooliganism. Those demonstrators had not been held for more than three hours (the maximum length of time that a person could be held in police custody and then released without an arrest record being drawn up), and no administrative penalty had been imposed on them. 20 .     On 1 October 2015 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the SIS on behalf of the applicant. He asserted that after the dispersal of the sit-in demonstration on 23 June 2015 between about 5 and 5.30 a.m., the applicant had been apprehended near the site of the sit-in and had been taken to Shengavit police station on suspicion of hooliganism. At the police station, he had been questioned as a witness and had been submitted to two tests for, respectively, alcohol and drugs. The applicant stated that he had been released only at about 1.30 p.m. and that during the entire period that he had been in police custody he had been in wet clothes and had been left without any food or time to rest. He asked the SIS to bring to account those responsible and to investigate the lawfulness and proportionality of the police actions when dispersing the demonstration, including the necessity to use “special means”. 21 .     On the same date the applicant’s lawyer enquired at Shengavit police station about the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and placement in police custody. In reply, he was informed that on 23 June 2015, at 6.10 a.m., the applicant had been brought to the police station on suspicion of hooliganism and that at 8.50 a.m. he had been taken to the investigative unit. The lawyer was advised that, should he wish for further information, he should lodge an application with the IC. 22 .     On 23 November 2015 he lodged a similar enquiry with the relevant subdivision of the IC. He was informed that no criminal proceedings had been opened against the applicant and that the applicant had no procedural status whatsoever in respect of any criminal cases being examined by the investigative subdivision of Shengavit District of the IC. 23 .     According to a record entitled “Bringing a person in to a police station” ( անձին ոստիկանություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին արձանագրություն ) drawn up on 23 June 2015, on the same day at about 6   a.m., the applicant was brought from a location near Freedom Square to Shengavit police station on suspicion of hooliganism. According to a written explanation of the applicant’s rights that was given to him at the police station, the applicant had been deprived of liberty under Article 182 of the CAO (Failure to comply with a lawful order given by a police officer; see paragraph 58 below). 24 .     According to the summary of the procedural steps taken in respect of the applicant, as outlined in the decision of 24 July 2019 (see paragraph   31 below), the applicant was brought to Shengavit police station at about 6 a.m. During his police custody the applicant was subjected to a personal search, and was then fingerprinted and photographed. At some point, the latter refused to give a statement ( բացատրություն ) and was questioned as a witness in the investigative unit of Shengavit police station between 10.05   and 11.45 a.m. A police officer, V.T., took the decision to take samples of urine and hair from the applicant and to submit those samples for an expert toxicology examination. 25 .     On 16 March 2016, in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant was interviewed as a witness by an investigator from the SIS within the scope of criminal case no. 62217915 (see paragraph 17 above) and was subsequently accorded the status of a victim. He submitted, in particular, that on 22 June 2015, together with the other protesters, he had marched to Baghramyan Avenue, where they had remained on Avenue overnight. The following day, in the early morning, the police had warned the protesters that their actions were unlawful and had demanded that they clear the road, warning that otherwise they (that is, the police) would disperse the sit-in. However, the protesters had remained on the street because they had believed that the protest was lawful. At about 5 a.m. the police had hosed down the protesters using a water cannon, and had then started arresting those sitting on the Avenue. Thereafter, in the company of many others, the applicant had headed towards Freedom Square, and the police had chased after them. Before long, he had been arrested and at about 6 a.m. had been brought to Shengavit police station. A police officer had drawn up standard procedural documentation upon his arrival to the police station. The applicant had called his brother, who had informed him that a lawyer was coming to assist him. The applicant had been searched and photographed. About two hours later he had been taken to the police station’s investigations department for questioning. At about 9 a.m. he had refused to testify in writing; a police officer had then taken him to the ground floor, but had not explained why he should wait there. The applicant noted that, although the police officers had not forbidden him from leaving, they had not told him that he had been free to go home; therefore, being a law-abiding citizen, he had decided to wait. At about 10 a.m. two police officers (holding him by the arms) had taken him out of the police station, where he had encountered his lawyer. The latter had asked the police officers where the applicant was being taken and had been informed in reply that the applicant had to undergo a drug test. The lawyer had told the officers that the applicant would not go anywhere without him, after which the applicant had been taken back inside to the office of another investigator who had announced that the applicant had the status of a witness. Subsequently, the applicant had been questioned as a witness in the presence of his lawyer, after which he had been asked to wait in one of the offices. There, a police officer, V.T., had told him that he had to be taken for a drug test. Soon the then deputy chief of the police station had entered the office and, having learnt that the applicant had already been interviewed as a witness, had told him that he was free to go. When they had been about to leave, the applicant and his lawyer had again been asked to wait in one of the offices – allegedly on the instructions of the chief of the police station (who had allegedly wished to talk to them). The applicant’s lawyer had left the office to enquire about the reasons for their having to remain at the police station. When the applicant had attempted to leave the office, a police officer had told him to wait inside. Shortly thereafter, together with two other arrested demonstrators (and in the absence of his lawyer), the applicant had been placed in a police van and taken to undergo a drug test at National Addiction Treatment Centre (“the NATC”), where they had arrived at about 1 p.m. When the applicant had refused to undergo the test, V.T. had threatened him with arrest. The applicant had then given in and had been released only after undergoing the test. In response to the investigator’s question regarding whether the police officers had refused to release him after the expiry of the “three-hour time ‑ limit”, the applicant replied that his impression was that he had not been at liberty to leave and that was why he had not demanded that he be released – although they had not actually placed him under lock and key ( փակի տակ պահել ). The applicant added that at the police station he had been treated well: he had been allowed to use the toilet, and the police had given him water and had allowed to make a phone call. He had not felt cold notwithstanding his wet clothes. 26 .     Police officers testified within the scope of the above-noted criminal case no. 62217915 (see paragraph 17 above). They submitted similar statements, asserting that following the dispersal of the demonstration a number of demonstrators had been “brought in” ( բերման են ենթարկվել ) to the police station on suspicion of having engaged in hooliganism. In particular, a criminal case had been opened against the participants of the sit ‑ in demonstration at the IC (see paragraph 9 above). The police officers in charge had drawn up the standard procedural documents in respect of the demonstrators who had been brought to the police station, after which they had been transferred to the IC to be questioned within the scope of the hooliganism case. No one had been kept at the police station against his or her will after the expiry of the three-hour time-limit and, in fact, upon A.H.’s instruction, the officers had informed the demonstrators that they were free to leave but that investigators nevertheless had to question them. The majority of the demonstrators had decided to stay until their turn came to be questioned. The police officers had treated the arrestees with respect, had informed them of their rights, and had allowed them to drink water, make a telephone call, and use the toilet. The demonstrators had been placed in different offices within the police station. As regards the applicant’s above ‑ mentioned transfer to the NATC, it had been the obligation of the persons who had been brought into the police station, to submit samples for forensics tests. 27 .     Police officer L.A., who had drawn up the standard procedural documentation upon the applicant arriving at the police station, also asserted that his specifying different legal grounds in different documents for the applicant being brought in had been due to negligence and haste on his part, but that the applicant had been brought to the police station on suspicion of having engaged in hooliganism. the Results of the investigation and the applicant’s Appeals 28 .     During the investigation more than two hundred police officers were questioned. They gave similar statements, asserting that they had had no intention of keeping the demonstrators at the police station for more than three hours. Rather, because they had been overloaded with paperwork, it had sometimes taken a long time to draw up the relevant documentation in respect of each demonstrator; moreover, the demonstrators had been informed that they would be questioned, and that they had preferred to wait for their turn to be interviewed. Thirty-seven demonstrators were accorded the status of victim; fifteen of them had suffered bruises and contusions as a result of the above-mentioned use of water cannon, but with no serious damage to their health. While some of the victims complained of ill-treatment by the police officers, others submitted that during their stay at the police stations they had been treated well and had not been placed under any kind of special supervision. Rather, the police officers had allowed them to make calls and move around freely. 29 .     On 4 March 2019 an investigator of the SIS (“the SIS investigator”) dealing with criminal case no. 62217915 (see paragraph 17 above) decided to suspend the investigation because the identity of those who could be charged remained unknown. The decision referred to the circumstances of the dispersal of the sit-in demonstration depicted in the clarification furnished by the police (see paragraph 19 above). It also referred to the testimony of the victims and the police officers (see paragraph 28 above). Most of the victims of the alleged police violence had not provided any information about the police officers who had been involved in that violence or who had committed other unlawful acts. Moreover, no evidence had been obtained to indicate that other police officers had (as submitted by certain victims) committed a criminal offence, thus making it impossible to legally classify those officers’ alleged actions. As regards the dispersal of the sit-in by the use of water cannon, a breach of the rules governing the use of “special means” would render anyone breaching those rules criminally liable under Article 373 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 47 below) only if light or medium-gravity damage had been negligently caused to a person’s health by such a breach; however, there was nothing to confirm that anyone had suffered such damage. 30 .     On 15 April 2019 the prosecutor in charge of supervising the proceedings in criminal case no. 62217915 (see paragraph 17 above) – following appeals lodged by, among others, the applicant – decided to quash the above-mentioned decision and to remit the case for further investigation. The prosecutor noted that entrusting the fact-finding to the police could not ensure the independence of the investigation, given that the police officers would have to collect information implicating their fellow officers. In addition, he instructed that the SIS undertake a more thorough investigation into the portion of the time that the demonstrators had spent in police custody that exceeded the three-hour time-limit set by law. In particular, it was necessary: to establish the persons who had ordered that they be brought to the police station and the persons who had had implemented that; to enquire into the legality of recording the grounds for the demonstrators being brought to the police station; to establish the identity of each police officer responsible for keeping those demonstrators in police custody for more than three hours, and to determine whether in so doing the intention had been to breach the rights of the persons concerned; and to determine whether or not their conduct could be classified as a criminal breach. 31 .     Following the resumption of the proceedings, decisions were taken not to prosecute police officers for holding protesters in police custody for more than three hours. On 24 July 2019 such a decision was taken specifically in respect of the applicant. The SIS investigator, relying, inter alia , on the testimony of the applicant and the police officers, concluded that the mere fact that the applicant’s stay at the police station had exceeded three hours was not sufficient of itself to conclude that the actions of the police officers involved had constituted the offence of abuse of office under Article 308 §   1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 45 below). This was so even though the prolonged length of the time that the applicant spent in police custody had been based on a verbal instruction given by the officers in question (rather than the applicant being kept under lock and key) in order to give them time to complete certain procedural steps. The actions of the police officers had thus lacked the mens rea element of the offence of abuse of office, which required direct intent. Therefore, given that (i) it had not been established that the police officers had intentionally kept the applicant at the police station for more than three hours, and (ii) the possibility to obtain new evidence had been exhausted, the actions of the police officers had lacked the corpus delicti element of the crime of abuse of office. At the same time, the fact that the actions of State officials had not been criminal did not rule out the possibility of their being subjected to disciplinary proceedings or of the applicant obtaining compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the State through civil proceedings. 32 .     By another decision of 26 July 2019 the SIS investigator decided to stay the proceedings in respect of criminal case no. 62217915 on the same grounds as those cited in his decision of 4 March 2019 (see paragraph   29 above). 33 .     The decisions of 24 and 26 July 2019 were, respectively, upheld by the prosecutor on 4 December and 12 August 2019, following appeals lodged with the prosecutor by the applicant. 34 .     On 26 December 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction against (i) the decision of the SIS investigator of 24 July 2019 not to prosecute the police officers, and (ii) the prosecutor’s subsequent decision of 4 December 2019 to uphold that decision (see paragraphs 31 and 33 above). He pointed out that his stay at the police station had not been voluntary (as asserted by the police). Had he indeed been free to leave the police station, why he would have had any obligation to submit to a drug test. The applicant also alleged that his being deprived of his liberty for several hours could have pursued the aim of punishing him for his participation in the sit-in protest. He asserted out that hundreds of demonstrators had been targeted by the alleged criminal behaviour of the police officers. 35 .     On 30 July 2020 the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed as unsubstantiated the appeal lodged by the applicant. It found, in particular, that there had been no breach of the applicant’s rights: the investigation into the alleged criminal conduct of police officers had been carried out thoroughly and diligently. 36 .     On 29 October 2020 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the above decision. The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law. 37 .     On 1 October 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction against the decision of 26 July 2019 and the prosecutor’s decision of 12 August 2019 to uphold it (see paragraphs   32 and   33 above). However, following the resumption of the proceedings in respect of criminal case no. 62217915 (see paragraph 38 below), he withdrew his appeal. 38 .     On 10 January 2020 the SIS investigator decided to resume the proceedings in respect of criminal case no. 62217915 because it was necessary to perform certain procedural actions. 39 .     On 22 January 2020 he decided, for the third time, to suspend the criminal proceedings on the same grounds as those stated above (see paragraphs 29 and 32 above). The decision stated that although (following the resumption of the proceedings) charges had been brought against a senior police officer for physically assaulting one of the protesters, no further evidence had been secured in respect of any other police officers. 40.     On 12 February 2020 this decision was upheld by the prosecutor following an appeal lodged by the applicant. 41.     On 11 March 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction (i) against the third suspension of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 39 above) and (ii) the above-noted decision of the prosecutor to uphold it. 42 .     On 30 June 2021 the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found, inter alia , that in so far as the applicant’s rights were concerned, on 24 July 2019 the SIS investigator had already decided not to prosecute the police officers involved in his deprivation of liberty (see paragraph 31 above) – and indeed, after the resumption of the case, the episode concerning the applicant had not been re-examined. At the same time, the applicant had been able to lodge complaints against the decision of 24 July 2019; those complaints had been examined and dismissed by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The applicant did not appeal against the above decision. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE Criminal Code of 2003; as in force at the relevant time (abrogated on 1 July 2022) 43 .     Article 225 § 5 defined mass disorder as actions of more than one person in the form of violence, massacre, arson, destroying or damaging property, using firearms, explosives or explosive devices or showing armed resistance to a State official, as a result of which public safety was endangered. 44 .     Article 258 § 1 of the Criminal Code classified “hooliganism” as a gross and intentional violation of public order manifested through an expressly disrespectful attitude towards society, and provided that it was punishable by a fine of up to fifty times the fixed minimum wage or by detention of up to one month. 45 .     Article 308 § 1 (“Abuse of office”) provided that use by a public official of his or her official position against the interests of his or her service or the failure by such an official to carry out his or her official duties for selfish, personal or group interests (if causing significant damage to the rights and lawful interests of individuals or legal entities), or the lawful interests of society or the State, were punishable by a fine of between two and three hundred times the minimal wage, or forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to carry out certain activities for a period not exceeding five years, or detention for a period of two to three months, or up to four years’ imprisonment. 46 .     Article 309 § 2 (“Exceeding one’s official authority”) provided that intentional actions committed by a public official that obviously fell outside the scope of his or her authority and caused significant damage to the rights and lawful interests of individuals or legal entities, or to the lawful interests of society or the State, if accompanied with use of violence, arms or “special means”, were punishable by imprisonment for a period of two to six years, and by forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to carry out certain activities for a period not exceeding three years. 47.     Article 373 § 1 , contained in the chapter of the Criminal Code concerning offences against military service rules, provided that a breach of the rules governing the handling of arms, munitions, radioactive substances, explosives or other devices, objects or material that present a heightened risk to the environment, which caused light or medium damage to a person’s health, was punishable by rendering the person responsible for that breach ineligible for promotion within the military for a period of one to three years, or by sentencing him or her to serve in a disciplinary battalion for up to two years, or by imprisonment for up to two years. Code of Criminal Procedure of 1999; as in force at the relevant time (abrogated on 30 July 2022) 48.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) are summarised in the case of Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia , no.   23086/08, §§ 100-05 and 109-11, 20 September 2018. 49 .     Article 62 § 1 (“A suspect”) provided that a suspect was a person (a)   who had been arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence; or (b) in respect of whom, prior to the bringing of a charge, a decision had been taken to impose a preventive measure. 50 .     Article 63 § 5 (3) provided that, at the order of an authority conducting criminal proceedings ( քրեական վարույթն իրականացնող մարմին ), an accused had to undergo a medical examination, be fingerprinted, photographed, and allow to be taken from him or her samples of blood and bodily fluids. 51 .     Article 128 § 1 (“The concept of arrest”) defines arrest ( ձերբակալումը ) as the act of taking a person into custody, bringing him before an authority conducting criminal proceedings, and drawing up the relevant record (and informing that person thereof), for the purpose of preventing him or her from committing an offence or from fleeing after committing an offence and with the aim of keeping that person in short ‑ term custody in places and under conditions defined by law. According to Article   128 § 3, a person could be arrested (1) on suspicion of having committed an offence; or (2) on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by an investigating authority. 52 .     Article 131 1 § 1 (“The procedure for a suspect’s arrest”) provided that a record of a suspect’s arrest had to be drawn up within three hours of his being brought before an authority conducting initial inquiry ( հետաքննության մարմին ), an investigator or a prosecutor, and that a copy thereof had to be given to the arrested person, and that he or she had to sign it (by way of certifying that it was accurate). 53.     Article 132 § 1 provided that an arrested person had to be released – should the authority conducting the criminal proceedings so decide – if (1)   the suspicion that that person had committed an offence had not been confirmed; (2) there was no need to keep the person in custody; or (3) the maximum time-limit for an arrest [seventy-two hours] prescribed by the CCP had expired and the court had not issued a decision ordering that the accused be detained. 54 .     On 16 January 2018 Article 129 of the CCP was supplemented with paragraphs 3-8 setting out the rights and obligations of a person deprived of liberty before he or she acquired the status of an arrestee. In particular, under Article 129 § 3 – after the passage of four hours following the moment of a person’s de facto deprivation of liberty, that person automatically acquired the rights and obligations of a suspect (regardless of whether or not a