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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 44841/08 and 63701/09 Gagik JHANGIRYAN against Armenia lodged on 16 July 2008 and 17 November 2009 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 applicant’s deprivation of liberty between 11.30 p.m. on 23   February 2008 and the time when the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court decided to detain the applicant on 27 February 2008 lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s arrest based on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the domestic courts provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s detention, as required by Article 5 § 3   of the Convention?   4.     Was the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated? In particular, did the fact that the son of Judge V., who presided over the examination of the applicant’s case by the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, was a member of the investigators’ group established to investigate the applicant’s case gave rise to a legitimate doubt as regards Judge V.’s impartiality?   5.     Did the applicant’s prosecution and subsequent conviction amount to an interference with his right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? If so, did such interference comply with the requirements of Articles 10 § 2 and 11   §   2 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant, by being prosecuted and convicted, fall victim to discrimination on the basis of his political opinion in violation of the guarantees of Article 14 of the Convention?