CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 44765/08 and 10607/10 Vardan JHANGIRYAN against Armenia lodged on 16 July 2008 and 15 January 2010 respectively The facts and complaints in these cases have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the force used by the police officers against the applicant during the police operation at the Argavand intersection on 23 February 2008 compatible with the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention? Moreover, did the investigating authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegation of use of unnecessary force against him during the police operation, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to inform the Court – and to submit corresponding documents – about the outcome of the investigation into the episode of shooting by police officer R.M. during the police operation, as referred to in the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal of 3 December 2008.   2.     Did the police officers provide timely and proper medical assistance to the applicant after the police operation and during the entire duration of his arrest? If not, did the non-provision of such medical assistance violate the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Was adequate medical assistance provided to the applicant during his pre-trial detention? If not, did the applicant’s detention amount to ill-treatment as prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, given that no adequate medical assistance could be provided to him while in detention? Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment, as prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, by being kept for most of his detention in a cell which lacked adequate facilities for detaining a person suffering from spinal tuberculosis?   4.     Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, by being forced despite his poor health to attend and to participate in his trial both while in detention and after being released, and because of being transported to the trial court in a prison van not adapted for carrying detainees with health problems?   5.     Was the applicant’s detention from 24 April until 16 June 2008 “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   6.     Was there an effective domestic remedy for the alleged use of excessive force against the applicant by the police officers during the police operation, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?