CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD3C5A1EB { width:132.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF HAKOBYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 21350/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hakobyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 April 2019. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms D. Shakhramanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 3.     The application was communicated to the Armenian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant complained of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, in particular because of the absence of an opportunity to put questions in court to the witness whose testimony had played a significant role in securing his conviction. THE LAW         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the convention 6.     The applicant complained of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, in particular because he had not had an opportunity to put questions in court to the witness who had testified against him. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. 7.     The general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and his statements previously made by him were admitted as evidence are well-established in the Court’s case law (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015). In Schatschaschwili , the Court found a violation on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the two key prosecution witnesses examined at any stage of the proceedings (ibid., §§   161-65). While developed for scenarios in which a prosecution witness does not appear at the trial, these principles can also be applicable where the witnesses do appear before the trial court, but procedural irregularities prevent the applicant from examining them. They can also serve as guidance where the relevant issue is not the non-appearance of witnesses at the trial but rather the modalities of their cross-examination which may limit the rights of the defence (see Chernika v. Ukraine , no. 53791/11, § 46, 12 March 2020). 8.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, including the parties’ observations, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. It considers that the fact that the applicant was not provided with an opportunity to put key questions to the witness in question weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court also takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicant on account of the admission of the witness’s untested statement as evidence. 9.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.       other complaints 10.     The applicant also complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts had failed to adequately address his arguments as regards assessment of the untested witness statement. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case (see paragraphs 7-9 above) and that there is no need to examine separately this remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11 .     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Avetisyan v. Armenia, no. 13479/11, §§ 73-74, 10   November 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Declares the complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicant;      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the absence of an opportunity to put questions in court to the witness whose testimony played a significant role in securing the applicant’s conviction;      Holds   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 April 2026, pursuant to Rule77   §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Final domestic decision Charges convicted of Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials) Summary of the nature of the witness evidence Reasons for absence Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 21350/19 15/04/2019 Hrayr HAKOBYAN 1959   Shakhramanyan Diana Yerevan Court of Cassation   16/10/2018   Misappropriation of state funds (swindling in particularly large amounts and forgery of official documents) H.Z.   H.Z.’s statement was the only evidence directly implicating the applicant in the act of swindling of State funds and played the decisive role in his conviction on that count. There was no other direct evidence linking the applicant to the crimes he had been charged with.   While H.Z. was interviewed twice during the pre-trial investigation, the witness only made incriminating statements against the applicant during the second interview. In court, she retracted these statements, claiming the investigator had inaccurately recorded them and tried to confuse her. The presiding judge did not allow H.Z. to respond to the questions of the defence related to the charges against the applicant and to her relevant incriminating statement for formalistic reasons. In particular, the judge did not allow the applicant’s representative to question the witness about the discrepancies between her statements, including about having passed money to the applicant and the circumstances surrounding it, on the grounds that H.Z. had been summoned for an additional examination only with regard to the criminal case against her and she could not therefore have been questioned about other matters. 2,400 1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.