CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2013

.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 } .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 } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .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 } THIRD SECTION Application no. 61730/08 Davit MATEVOSYAN against Armenia lodged on 1 December 2008   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charge against him, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, did the refusal of the domestic courts to grant the applicant’s motions to call H.M. and A.O. as defence witnesses violate his right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him? The Government are requested to explain – and to provide copies of corresponding documents – on which materials of the criminal case the Criminal Court of Appeal based its conclusion that both H.M. and A.O. had already been taken to the police station before the police officers approached the applicant.   2. Did the applicant’s prosecution and subsequent conviction amount to an interference with his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly as protected by 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?   3.     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?