CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 novembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s17287D88 { width:273.16pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   2 December 2010   THIRD SECTION Application no. 23086/08 by Mushegh SAGHATELYAN against Armenia lodged on 22 April 2008   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Mushegh Saghatelyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Grigoryan and S. Safaryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The 19 February 2008 presidential election in Armenia and post-election demonstrations 3.     On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia. The main contenders were the then Prime Minister, Serzh Sargsyan, and the main opposition candidate, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who had also served as President of Armenia between 1991 and 1998. 4.     The applicant, who had occupied the post of the Head of Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Interior during Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s presidency, was an active supporter of his candidacy. 5.     It appears that immediately after the election, Levon Ter-Petrosyan announced that the election had not been free and fair. From 20 February 2008 onwards, nationwide protest rallies were held by thousands of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s supporters, the main meeting place for them being the central Freedom Square in Yerevan and the surrounding park (known as Opera Square). It appears that a few hundred of the demonstrators, including the applicant, stayed in that area around the clock, having set up tents. It further appears that these demonstrations were held without notifying the authorities as required by law, but the authorities did not make any attempt to interfere with their conduct. It also appears that on the first day of the protest rallies the applicant gave a speech at one of the demonstrations. 6.     On 24 February 2008 the Central Election Commission announced that Prime Minister Sargsyan had won the election with around 52% of all votes cast, while Levon Ter-Petrosyan received around 21% of votes. 2.     The events of 1 March 2008 and institution of criminal proceedings 7.     On 1 March 2008, apparently at some point between 6 and 7 a.m., police forces arrived on Freedom Square. 8.     The applicant alleges that the police, without any prior warning or orders to disperse, unexpectedly attacked the several hundred demonstrators based on the square and started beating them with rubber truncheons and destroying the tents. It appears that clashes took place. The applicant further alleges that he and the other demonstrators had to flee from the square, but were followed by the police. 9.     On the same date criminal proceedings no. 62202508 were instituted under Article 225.1 §§ 1 and 2, Article 235 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 316 § 2 of the Criminal Code (CC). This decision stated: “After the announcement of the preliminary results of the presidential election of 19   February 2008, the presidential candidate, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, members of parliament, [K.S. and S.M.], the chief editor of “Haykakan Zhamanak” daily, [N.P.], and others organised and held mass public events on Yerevan’s Freedom Square in violation of the procedure prescribed by law and made calls inciting to disobey the decisions ordering an end to the events held in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, while a number of participants in the mass events illegally possessed and carried illegally obtained weapons and ammunition. On 1 March 2008 at around 6 a.m., when the police took measures aimed at forcibly ending the public events held in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, in compliance with the requirements of Section 14 of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act, the organisers and participants of the events, disobeying the lawful orders of public officials performing their duties, namely the police, inflicted violence on the latter dangerous for their life and health with pre-arranged clubs, metal rods and other adapted tools, causing [them] injuries of various gravity.” 10.     It appears that later that day the violence escalated and more clashes took place between the law enforcement authorities and the demonstrators, part of whom had relocated to the area surrounding the French Embassy and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office and were joined by thousands of others. The clashes continued until late at night, resulting in ten deaths and numerous injured and a state of emergency being declared by the incumbent President   Kocharyan which, inter alia , prohibited the holding of any further rallies and other mass public events for a period of twenty days. 11.     On 2 March 2008 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted, no.   62202608, under Article 225 § 3 and Article 235 § 2 of the CC. This decision stated: “The self-nominated presidential candidate at the presidential election of 19   February 2008, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, and his followers and supporters, members of parliament [K.S. and S.M.], the chief editor of “Haykakan Zhamanak” daily, [N.P.], and others, not willing to concede defeat at the election, with the aim of casting doubt on the election, instilling distrust towards the results among large segments of the population, creating illusions of public discontent and revolt and discrediting the election and the authorities, from 1 March 2008 in the area of the Yerevan Mayor’s Office and central streets organised mass riots which involved murders, violence, pogroms, arson, destruction of property and armed resistance to public officials, effected with the use of firearms, explosives and other adapted objects.” 12.     It appears that on the same date a number of police officers, including police officer A.Arsh. who had sustained injuries as a result of the police operation on the morning of 1 March 2008, were recognised as victims for the purpose of criminal proceedings no. 62202508. It further appears that police officer A.Arsh. was subjected to a medical examination and light injuries to his head were recorded. 13.     By a letter of 10 March 2008 the Chief of Special Investigative Service requested detailed information from the Deputy Chief of the Armenian Police concerning the police operation of 1 March 2008. 14.     By a letter of 27 March 2008 the Deputy Chief of the Armenian Police replied to the above request. According to his reply, the organisers and the participants of the unauthorised rallies that were held between 20   and 29 February 2008 had been on numerous occasions informed about the unlawful nature of those events. The police operation of 1 March 2008 was based on the reconnaissance information received on the previous day by the police and the national security service, according to which a large quantity of metal rods, wooden clubs, firearms and explosives was to be distributed to the demonstrators in order to instigate mass riots. The aim of the operation was to verify that information and to inspect the location. A number of unarmed police officers entered Opera Square where they were attacked by 800-900 demonstrators armed with metal rods and wooden clubs, who were expecting the arrival of the police. The police officers were beaten and stones, pointed metal objects and Molotov cocktails were thrown at them. An on-the-spot decision was taken to engage the special forces, which had been previously deployed on the approaches to the square to prevent a possible deterioration of the situation and were equipped with helmets, shields and rubber truncheons. The operation was carried out between 7 and 7.30 a.m. and was followed by a search. As a result numerous specially adapted metal objects, weapons, ammunition and Molotov cocktails were found. Dozens of the most active and aggressive participants of the mass riots were taken into police custody. 3.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant (a)     The applicant’s arrest and his alleged ill-treatment 15.     According to the record of bringing a person to police ( արձանագրություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին ), on 1 March 2008 at around 6.30 a.m. the applicant was brought from 1 Grigor Lusavorich Street by three police officers, E.R., H.S. and A.A., to the Central Police Department. The record stated that the applicant had been brought to the police station for organising unauthorised demonstrations at Freedom Square in support of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, resisting police officers and failing to follow their lawful orders. The applicant refused to sign this record. 16.     The applicant alleges that in reality he was arrested by about 10-15 persons who did not introduce themselves as police officers and were masked. These persons had been following him all the way from Freedom Square. When he reached Arshakunyats Street, he managed to catch a taxi, but the taxi was blocked after about 1-2 km by a police car near the Press House situated at 1 Grigor Lusavorich Street. The above persons forced him and a few others who were with him in the taxi, and were apparently also fleeing, out of the taxi and started kicking, punching and hitting him and the others with rubber truncheons. He then lost consciousness and was taken to the Central Police Department. 17.     The applicant further alleges that upon his arrival at the Central Police Department the arresting and a number of other police officers started to beat and humiliate him again. Different parts of his body were hit, including his head and legs, as a result of which he fell on the floor bleeding and was unable to get up. He was then again hit on the head, which resulted in concussion and loss of consciousness. Twice an ambulance was called to provide medical assistance. According to the applicant, the violence was being inflicted upon the instructions of the chief police officers. 18.     It appears that police officers E.R., H.S. and A.A. reported to their superiors about the fact that the applicant had been brought to the police station. 19.     An undated letter from the Chief of the Central Police Department stated: “As a result of mass events organised and held on Yerevan’s Freedom Square in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, on 1 March 2008 at around 7 a.m. the officers of the Armenian police, having received an order, demanded the persons gathered at the square to clear the square and to terminate the mass event that they had been holding for days[. H]owever, they did not obey the lawful orders of the police officers, by inflicting violence dangerous for health and life of public officials subjected [them] to mass beatings and did not obey their lawful orders, for which the activists of the above-mentioned rally were brought to the Central Police Department of Yerevan, among them: [A.M., the applicant, D.A., M.A., V.H. and H.B.]. A clasp knife was discovered in [the applicant’s] possession during his personal inspection carried out at the police station...” 20.     The applicant alleges that no such item was ever found in his possession. 21.     According to a record of questioning, from 7.20 to 7.40 p.m. the applicant was questioned as a witness. He stated that he had been informed in connection with which criminal case he had been invited to testify as a witness and that it had been explained to him that as a witness he was obliged to testify or risk criminal responsibility. He, nevertheless, did not wish to testify as he had not committed any offence. This record was signed by the applicant. 22.     The applicant alleges that he was kept in a cell at the Central Police Department until around 10 p.m. Then an investigator came to question him but, since he was unable to give testimony, the investigator left. 23.     At 10.30 p.m. the investigator drew up a record of an arrest ( արձանագրություն անձի ձերբակալման մասին ) which stated that the applicant was arrested at that hour on suspicion of having committed offences prescribed by Articles 225.1 § 2 and 316 § 2 of the CC. 24.     On 2 March 2008, in the morning, the applicant was transferred to a police temporary detention facility. According to a letter of the administration of the detention facility, the applicant was subjected to a medical examination at the time of admission. An open wound on the left part of his head was recorded, while his left eye was found to be bluish-red. The applicant complained of pain in his legs. 25.     The applicant alleges that this medical examination was not carried out properly and only the obvious injuries were recorded for purely formal reasons. 26.     On the same date the applicant was questioned as a suspect within the scope of criminal case no. 62202508. He submitted that he had not committed any offence and was participating in a peaceful demonstration on Freedom Square when at around 6.30 a.m. thousands of police officers started beating the demonstrators with rubber truncheons without prior warning or orders to disperse. He and the others fled but the police officers followed them and he was eventually arrested. He was severely beaten both during his apprehension and at the police station by the arresting police officers. The applicant was further asked questions about his participation in the demonstrations held after 19 February 2008. He admitted his participation but denied that the demonstrators had any weapons. 27.     Later that day the investigator decided to order a medical examination of the applicant. This decision stated that during the events of 1   March 2008 a number of people had been injured, including the applicant. It was therefore necessary to clarify the location, nature, sequence of infliction, age and gravity of any injuries on the applicant’s body and the method of their infliction. 28.     On 3 March 2008 the applicant filed a motion seeking to be released from arrest, claiming that he had been arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion. 29.     On 5 March 2008 the applicant was transferred to Vardashen pre-trial detention facility. At the time of admission a record of physical injuries was drawn up, signed by the applicant, which indicated the following injuries on his body: “... a bruise on the lower part of the left eye socket, scratch wounds on the shins, a bruise measuring 10 x 12 cm on the external surface of the left shoulder-blade and a scabbed wound measuring 2 x 3 cm on the rear part of the left temple. The indicated injuries, according to [the applicant], are four days old.” 30.     The applicant alleges that this medical examination was also not carried out properly and not all the injuries were recorded. 31.     It appears that on 10 March 2008 a medical expert examined the applicant at the detention facility as requested by the investigator’s decision of 2 March 2008. The applicant submitted to the expert that on 1 March 2008 at around 7-7.30 p.m., when he was about to leave by taxi, a police car blocked the way and he was taken out of the taxi by police officers who proceeded to beat him, hitting him with rubber truncheons and kicking him. He further submitted that upon arrival at the police station the arresting police officers continued to beat him and an ambulance was called to provide medical assistance. 32.     On 3 April 2008 the expert opinion was prepared which contained the following findings and conclusions: “A wound measuring 0.9 x 0.2 cm, covered with a grey crust and mobile when touched, is detected on the left part of the back of the head; the surrounding skin, in the area measuring 2.3 x 1.7 cm, has changed colour to pale pink. There is a bruise on the left side of the outer part of the upper and lower eye-lids and the cheek area of a non-dense nature and pale yellow greenish colour. Both parts of the chest are symmetrical and are equally involved in the respiration process. There is a bruise measuring 6.3 x 2.8 cm of unclear contour, non-dense nature and pale greenish-yellow colour on the right part of the chest on the same line as the rear armpit and at the level of the third and fourth ribs, which has also partly spread on the rear area of the shoulder line. It is not painful when palpated. There is a bruise measuring 1.8 x 1.5 cm on the front surface of the upper third part of the right leg of a pale greenish-blue colour. There are small scratches covered with grey scabs on the inner surface of the joint between the leg and the foot, which are raised compared to the surrounding unharmed skin. Conclusions. The injuries sustained by [the applicant, as described above,] were caused by blunt objects, possibly within the period as indicated in the circumstances of the case, which both jointly and separately do not qualify as mild bodily injuries. Since the injuries were inflicted within a short period, it is impossible to determine the sequence of [their] infliction.” 33.     The applicant alleges that the expert was not impartial and independent and the injuries recorded did not fully reflect his real state of health. 34.     On 2 May 2008 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Chief of the Central Police Department inquiring about the circumstances in which the above injuries had been inflicted on the applicant, whether they had been inflicted at the police station or prior to his arrival there and, if it was the latter, whether any record was made in the police registers. It appears that no reply was received to this inquiry. 35.     On 3 June 2008 the applicant applied to the General Prosecutor requesting, with reference to Articles 175-177 and 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), that criminal proceedings be instituted and an investigation be carried out into the fact of his ill-treatment. He submitted that the circumstances of his arrest contained an element of an offence since he had been beaten and tortured and his injuries were recorded in various documents. No assessment, however, had been given to this circumstance in the context of the criminal case against him. 36.     It appears that no reply was given or decision taken on this complaint. (b)     The investigation (i)     The initial charges and the applicant’s detention 37.     On 3 March 2008 the applicant was formally charged under Articles   225.1 § 2, 301, 316 § 2 and 318 § 1 of the CC within the scope of criminal case no. 62202608 of having organised and conducted from 20   February 2008 onwards, together with Levon Ter-Petrosyan and others, unlawful public events, demonstrations, 24-hour long rallies, pickets and sit ‑ ins which disturbed the normal life, traffic and functioning of public and private institutions and involved calls inciting a violent overthrow of the government and public insults at public officials. Thereafter, on 1   March   2008 at around 6 a.m., when police officers demanded the demonstrators gathered at Freedom Square to allow them to check the veracity of the information that the demonstrators had arms and ammunition and once again warned them to end the unlawful event, he and other demonstrators, disobeying their lawful orders, inflicted violence on the police officers dangerous for their life and health. 38.     On 4 March 2008 the applicant complained to the Chief of the Special Investigative Service that, inter alia , his 72-hour arrest permitted by law had already expired in violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention and that he was still unaware on what evidence the charge against him was based. 39.     On the same date at 7 p.m. the applicant was brought before the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan which examined the investigator’s motion seeking to have him detained for a period of two months. The motion – a one page document – was composed of the circumstances of the case as contained in the charge against the applicant and a brief motivation in support of the investigator’s request. 40.     The applicant submitted before the court that he had been brutally beaten and humiliated in the street and had received numerous injuries. He further submitted that no police officer had ever approached him, told him that they were looking for weapons or that the demonstration was unlawful and demanded that they disperse. The applicant also claimed that he was not a member of any political party and had not organised any demonstrations, and the charge against him was politically motivated. He lastly complained that the investigator’s motion had not been presented to him in order for him to prepare his defence and asked that he be given two hours for that purpose. 41.     A thirty minute recess was announced to allow the applicant and his lawyer to familiarise themselves with the motion and to prepare for the hearing. Following the recess, the applicant submitted that the charges against him lacked corpus delicti . As regards the charge under Article 316 of the CC, a group of 20-25 persons, without presenting themselves as police officers and looking like an ordinary group, unexpectedly attacked and beat him in the street and by doing so created an appearance of resistance. Moreover, no actual police officer to whom he had put up the alleged resistance was identified. Furthermore, his rights guaranteed by, inter alia , Article 10 of the Convention had been violated because he was prosecuted for simply being present at the demonstrations. As regards the charge under Article 301 of the CC, this was not based on any evidence and what precise calls inciting a violent overthrow of the government he had allegedly made was not even mentioned. 42.     The District Court decided to grant the investigator’s motion. It first recapitulated the circumstances as presented in the charge against the applicant and concluded that the motion was substantiated, taking into account the nature and dangerousness of the imputed act and the fact that, if he remained at large, the applicant could abscond, obstruct the proceedings, continue his criminal activities and avoid criminal responsibility and serving the penalty. 43.     On 10 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal. In his appeal he argued, inter alia , that the charge against him was unsubstantiated, lacked certainty and clarity, and was not based on sufficient evidence or any witness testimonies. In violation of the guarantees of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, an artificial ground was created to justify his detention, that is resistance to a public official, which had never happened. Furthermore, there were not sufficient grounds justifying his detention: he was known to be of good character, had a permanent place of residence, did not seek to evade the investigation or refuse to appear before the investigating authority. No real evidence of any attempt to obstruct the proceedings was presented. Nor could he, if he remained at large, engage in similar activities given the state of emergency declared in the country. 44.     On 21 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant’s detention was based on a reasonable suspicion and found the grounds invoked by the District Court in justification of detention as sufficient. 45.     It appears that on 28 March 2008 confrontations were held between the applicant and arresting police officers E.R., H.S. and A.A., as well as another police officer, A.P., who was apparently at the Central Police Department when the applicant was taken there on 1 March 2008. 46.     On 7 May 2008 the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible the applicant’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 March 2008. 47.     On 25 April 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan prolonged the applicant’s detention by two months, finding that it was still necessary to carry out a number of investigative measures and that, if he remained at large, the applicant could abscond, obstruct the proceedings, commit another offence and avoid criminal responsibility and serving the penalty. The applicant’s request to be released on bail was dismissed. 48.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision which was apparently dismissed by the Criminal Court of Appeal. 49.     On 18 June 2008 seven members of parliament filed a request with the General Prosecutor, seeking to have the applicant’s detention replaced with their personal guarantee. They claimed at the outset that the detention of several hundred persons, including the applicant, following the presidential election was a disproportionate measure and was not based on reasonable suspicions. They further submitted that they personally knew the applicant and guaranteed that, if he remained at large, he would not abscond, obstruct the proceedings, commit another offence or evade his penalty, if any. 50.     On 26 June 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan prolonged the applicant’s detention by two more months, finding that it was still necessary to carry out a number of investigative measures and that, if he remained at large, the applicant could abscond, obstruct the proceedings by exerting unlawful pressure on the participants in the proceedings and concealing or destroying important materials, and commit another offence. 51.     On 28 June 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia , that his continued detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion and that the courts gave standardised reasons when prolonging his detention. He claimed that the investigation and his detention were being prolonged in order to find justification for the unsubstantiated charge against him. 52.     On 15 July 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. (ii)     The applicant’s complaint against the police actions of 1 March 2008 53.     On 12 June 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan under Article 290 of the CCP. He sought to have the police order which served as the basis for the police intervention of 1 March 2008 and the intervention itself declared unlawful and unfounded. He submitted that he had participated in the demonstrations held from 20 February 2008 onwards. The demonstrations had been held in compliance with the Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention and involved no criminal behaviour. In the morning of 1 March 2008 armed police forces suddenly invaded Freedom Square and started beating the peaceful demonstrators. The police attack was unjustified and failed to meet the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Convention. The true purpose of the police actions, which was justified as an attempt to restore public order, was to launch political persecution of supporters of Levon   Ter ‑ Petrosyan, including himself, by provoking the demonstrators to engage in clashes, creating artificial charges and punishing them for exercising their right to freedom of assembly. Thus, the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had been criminalised and he was facing unfounded charges as a result of unlawful police actions. The applicant requested that the decision to institute criminal proceedings and to bring charges against him be quashed and the proceedings be terminated. 54.     On 8 July 2008 the Kentron and Nor-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to dismiss the complaint, finding that the order of the chief of police was not a decision or action prescribed by the CCP and therefore could not be contested under Article 290. As regards the applicant’s request to quash the decisions in question and to terminate the proceedings, the District Court found that such requests could be lodged with a court only after having applied to a prosecutor, which the applicant had failed to do. 55.     On 21 July 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal. In his appeal, he argued, inter alia , that the District Court had incorrectly interpreted Article   290 of the CCP. It had failed to make any assessment of the police actions and its conclusion that the order of the chief of police did not fall within the scope of criminal procedure law had not been based on the circumstances of the case. The police actions had been unlawful and disproportionate and the force used against peaceful demonstrators had been excessive, while the decision to institute criminal proceedings was artificial by its nature. Thus, such actions and the decision that followed should have been found incompatible with the requirements of the CCP. 56.     On 9 August 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court and to dismiss the applicant’s appeal. The Court of Appeal found, relying on Articles 278 and 290 of the CCP, that the contested police order and decision to institute criminal proceedings, as well as ordering the investigating authority to terminate the criminal proceedings, were beyond the scope of judicial control over pre-trial proceedings. Furthermore, such judicial control applied only to the period following institution of criminal proceedings. 57.     On 3 November 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 58.     On 21 November 2008 the Court of Cassation left the appeal unexamined on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time and that no proof was attached to the appeal certifying that its copy had been served on the opponent party. (iii)     The modified charges 59.     It appears that on 28 and 30 July 2008 photo identifications of the applicant were carried out by police officer A.Arsh. and another police officer, A.Aru., who had apparently also participated in the police operation on the morning of 1 March 2008 and witnessed the incident involving police officer A.Arsh. It further appears that both police officers identified the applicant as the person who had assaulted A.Arsh. It also appears that, according to police officer A.Aru.’s version of events, the applicant also physically resisted him when he later unsuccessfully attempted to arrest the applicant on Arshakunyats street. Police officer A.Aru. was also recognised as a victim. 60.     On 5 August 2008 the investigator decided to drop the charges under Articles 225.1 § 2, 301 and 318 § 1 of the CC and to supplement the charge under Article 316 § 2 of the CC with new charges under Articles 235 § 4 and 316 § 1 of the CC. 61.     According to that decision, during the clash between the demonstrators and the police which took place on 1 March 2008 at around 7   a.m., the applicant refused to follow the lawful orders of the police officers, attacked police officer A.Arsh., twice hit him on his head with a stick and disappeared into the crowd. Police officer A.Aru. saw the offence committed by the applicant but failed to arrest him. Thereafter police officer A.Aru. continued to perform his duties in the area of Arshakunyats Street, where he noticed the applicant. He tried to take the applicant to a police station but the latter resisted, pushed, pulled and kicked him and tried to escape in a taxi. Police officers E.R., H.S. and A.A. who were also in that area saw all this and took the applicant to the Central Police Department, during which a weapon, namely a knife, was found in his possession. The applicant’s actions were qualified under Articles 235 § 4 and 316 §§ 1 and 2 of the CC and he was formally charged under those Articles. 62.     As regards the charge under Article 225.1 § 2 of the CC, the investigator found that it had to be dropped since it had been established that on 1 March 2008 at around 7 a.m. on Freedom Square the police officers did not order the demonstrators to disperse but to allow them to inspect the area. Thus, the applicant’s actions did not contain features of a crime prescribed by that Article. 63.     As regards the charge under Article 301 of the CC, it had to be dropped on grounds of insufficient evidence since the applicant’s involvement in an attempt to seize State power could not be established. 64.     As regards the charge under Article 318 § 1 of the CC, it had to be dropped since that Article had been repealed in the meantime. 65.     On 6 August 2008 the applicant’s case was disjoined from criminal case no. 62202608 into a separate set of proceedings, no. 62215008. 66.     On 13 August 2008 the bill of indictment was prepared under Articles 235 § 4 and 316 §§ 1 and 2 of the CC. In support of the charges against the applicant, the prosecution relied on the statements of police officers A.Arsh. and A.Aru., arresting police officers E.R., H.S. and A.A., police officer A.P., and the driver of the police car, M.G. Two expert opinions were also invoked, one stating that the knife found in the applicant’s possession was a weapon and the other confirming that the injuries sustained by police officer A.Arsh. caused light damage to his health. It was further stated that the charge was also substantiated by the fact that various weapons and ammunition had been found on Freedom Square. It was lastly stated in the indictment that, during the clash between the police officers and the persons inflicting violence on them, the applicant also sustained injuries which did not even qualify as light injuries. The investigation in that respect was still pending. (c)     The proceedings at first instance 67.     On 13 August 2008 the applicant’s case was transmitted to the Yerevan Criminal Court for examination on the merits. 68.     In the proceedings before the Criminal Court, police officer A.Arsh. submitted that on 1 March 2008 when the police asked the demonstrators gathered at Freedom Square to allow them to carry out an inspection for weapons, the demonstrators reacted violently. They tried to calm them down but the applicant attacked him and hit him twice on the head with a stick, after which he fled. 69.     Police officer A.Aru. submitted that he had noticed how one of the demonstrators, namely the applicant, attacked police officer A.Arsh. and hit him on the head with a stick. He thereafter continued to perform his duty in the area of Arshakunyats street, where he noticed the applicant. He asked the applicant to go with him to a police station, but the applicant hit him several times on his chest, kicked his shield and fled. 70.     Police officer H.S. submitted that the applicant had inflicted violence on police officers on Arshakunyats street, by hitting and pulling them. He and police officers E.R. and A.A. took the applicant to a police station in a patrol car and a knife, mobile phones and a bunch of keys fell from his pockets. 71.     Police officer E.R. submitted that, when performing his duty on Arshakunyats street, he noticed one individual who was punching and kicking police officers. That person tried to flee but he and police officers H.S. and A.A. took him to a police station where he was identified as the applicant. A knife, a mobile phone and a bunch of keys were found in his possession. Police officer A.A. made similar submissions but stated that two mobile phones fell from the applicant’s pockets. 72.     Police officer A.P. submitted that on 1 March 2008 he was at the Central Police Department when the applicant was brought there and a clasp knife found in his possession was presented. Relevant documents were drawn up, and the applicant did not deny that the knife belonged to him. The applicant was taken to the police station on suspicion of inflicting violence on police officers. 73.     Police driver M.G. submitted that a knife was discovered in the applicant’s possession when he was being taken to the police station. 74.     The applicant denied his guilt and submitted that, even if he had participated in the demonstrations held from 20 February 2008, he had not done anything illegal. He and his co-thinkers who were at Freedom Square on 1 March 2008 found out about the upcoming arrival of the police several hours in advance. After the police had arrived, he had not hit anyone and had tried to escape. Having reached Arshakunyats street, he was brutally beaten by police officers and transported to the Central Police Department where he was also beaten. He never carried a knife and no knife was ever found in his possession. 75.     It appears that, in the proceedings before the Criminal Court, the applicant filed several motions requesting that a number of persons, A.M., N.T., D.A., M.A., V.H., H.B., S.A., H.T. and S.M., be called and examined as witnesses. He argued that the testimony of A.M., D.A., M.A., V.H. and H.B., who were also active demonstrators, would support his allegation that the actions of the police were unlawful from the very start, that on 1   March   2008 at around 6 a.m. he and the others had been attacked by the police and other forces without prior warning, that at 7 a.m. he was already at the police station and that he continued to be ill-treated there. He further argued that the testimony of N.T. and S.M., who were next to him at Freedom Square when the demonstrators were attacked by the police, would support his allegation that as early as at 6.45 a.m. there was nobody at Freedom Square apart from the police and that the imputed offence could not have happened in such circumstances. 76.     It appears that the Yerevan Criminal Court dismissed the applicant’s motions. 77.     On 23 October 2008 the Yerevan Criminal Court found the applicant guilty under Article 235 § 4 and Article 316 §§ 1 and 2 of the CC. The court sentenced him under Article 235 § 4 to a fine in the amount of 400,000   Armenian drams (AMD), under Article 316 § 1 to a fine in the amount of AMD 500,000 and under Article 316 § 2 to five years’ imprisonment. In doing so, the Criminal Court found it to be established that: “In the period preceding 1 March 2008 reconnaissance information was received by the Armenian Police and National Security Service that the demonstrators gathered at Yerevan’s Freedom Square had in their possession firearms, ammunition, clubs, rods and other articles for the purpose of causing physical injuries and violence. On 1   March 2008 at around 7 a.m. the police officers demanded the persons gathered at Yerevan’s Freedom Square to allow them to verify the above information by inspecting the area. The mentioned lawful demand of the police was announced out loud several times. Some of the people gathered at Freedom Square, including [the applicant], had already been informed several hours before about the planned police operation. The police officers of the State Defence Service brigade of the police, with the aim of preserving public order in that area, approached Freedom Square where [the applicant], in front of the statue of Hovhannes Tumanyan, hit the victim, [police officer A.Arsh.], twice on the head with a stick, causing damage to his health of light gravity resulting in brief deterioration of health, after which he disappeared in the crowd. [Police officer A.Aru., the second victim,] noticed the act committed by [the applicant]. [The latter] continued his duty in the area adjacent to Tigratn Mets publishing house situated on Arshakunyats Street, where he once again noticed [the applicant] and tried to bring him to the police station. [The applicant], disobeying [police officer A.Aru.’s] lawful order to appear at the police station, inflicted on [him] violence not dangerous to health by pushing, pulling and kicking [him], and tried to escape in a random taxi. [Police officers A.A., E.R. and H.S.], who were performing their duties at that time in the same area, noticed the incident and brought [the applicant] to the Central Police Department, during which a cold weapon – a knife – fell from [the applicant’s] pocket, as well as two mobile phones and a bunch of keys. On 1 March 2008 at 9 p.m. [the applicant] was arrested and on 4 March 2008 he was detained.” 78.     In reaching the above findings, the Yerevan Criminal Court relied on the following evidence: (a)     the above statements of police officers A.Arsh., A.Aru., H.S., E.R., A.A., A.P. and police driver M.G., as well as the statements of police officers E.R. and A.P. made during the confrontations with the applicant; (b)     an expert opinion, according to which the knife in question was a cold weapon, and a record of inspection of the knife, which contained its detailed description; (c)     a medical expert opinion concerning the injuries sustained by police officer A.Arsh.; (d)     the records of the applicant’s photo identifications by police officers A.Arsh. and A.Aru.; (e)     a letter of the Deputy Chief of Police, according to which on 1   March   2008 police officers of the State Defence Service brigade were on duty at Freedom Square; and (f)     expert opinions and records confirming that various weapons and ammunition were found on Freedom Square. 79.     The Yerevan Criminal Court found the applicant’s submissions to be unreliable and an attempt to avoid criminal responsibility. (d)     The proceedings before the appeal and cassation courts 80.     On 10 November 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal. In his appeal he raised numerous arguments, including that the charge against him was trumped up and politically motivated, that he had been ill-treated both at the time of his apprehension and at the police station and that no investigation had been carried out into his allegations of ill-treatment, that the interference with his freedom of peaceful assembly had been unlawful, unjustified and accompanied with use of excessive force by the police, that the only witnesses in the case were police officers who were not impartial and trustworthy witnesses and had moreover made contradictory and conflicting statements which constituted the sole basis for his conviction, that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since his request to call and examine witnesses on his behalf had been groundlessly dismissed, and that on 1 March 2008 he was questioned as a witness without a lawyer. 81.     On 10 December 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal in an expedited procedure and decided on the same day to dismiss the appeal, relying on the same evidence. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found, inter alia , that the fact that the victims and witnesses in the case were police officers did not diminish the probative value of their statements and it was unacceptable to view this as a predetermining and prejudicial circumstance. Furthermore, the criminal case was also based on a number of records of inspection of the crime scene, expert opinions and records of photo identification. 82.     As regards the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Court of Appeal stated that it was still necessary to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances under which injuries were sustained by persons, including the applicant, who had participated in the mass riots of 1 ‑ 2   March 2008 which involved widespread clashes, violence, arson, destruction and looting of property, armed resistance to police, use of weapons and explosives and murders. Since the investigation in the applicant’s case had been completed, his case was disjoined from criminal case no. 62202608, while the latter was still pending. 83.     On 27 January 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments to his appeal of 10 November 2008 and invoking, inter alia , Articles 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. 84.     On 10 March 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible. 85.     It appears that at the end of November 2010 the applicant was released from prison after having served more than half of his sentence. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     The Criminal Code (in force from 1 August 2003) 86.     Article 225.1 § 2 prescribes that making calls inciting to disobey a decision ordering an end to a public event held in violation of the procedure prescribed by law shall be punishable by a fine of between 300 and 500 times the minimum wage or detention of up to three months. 87.     Article 235 § 4 prescribes that illegal carrying of a gas, cold or missile weapon shall be punishable by a fine of between 200 and 600 times the minimum wage or detention of between one and three months or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. 88.     Article 301 prescribes that making public calls inciting a violent overthrow of the government and a violent change of the constitutional order of Armenia shall be punishable by a fine of between 300 and 500 times the minimum wage or by detention of between two and three months or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. 89.     Article 316 § 1 prescribes that inflicting violence or threatening to inflict violence, not dangerous for life or health, on a public official or his next-of-kin, connected with the performance of his official duties, shall be punishable by a fine of between 300 and 500 times the minimum wage or detention of up to one month or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. Article 316 § 2 prescribes that inflicting violence, dangerous for life or health, on persons mentioned in the first paragraph of this Article, connected with the performance of their duties, shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period from five to ten years. 90.     Article 318 § 1 prescribes that publicly insulting a public official, in connection with performance of his duties, shall be punishable by a fine of between 100 and 500 times the minimum wage or detention of up to one month. 2.     The Code of Criminal Procedure (in force from 12 January 1999) (a)     Ill-treatment and investigation 91.     Article 175 obliges the prosecutor, the investigator or the body of inquiry, within the scope of their jurisdiction, to institute criminal proceedings if there are grounds envisaged by this Code. 92.     According to Article 176, the grounds for instituting criminal proceedings include, inter alia , information about crimes received from individuals and discovery of information about a crime or traces and consequences of a crime by the body of inquiry, the investigator, the prosecutor, the court or the judge while performing their functions. 93.     According to Article 177, information about crimes received from individuals can be provided orally or in writing. An oral statement about a crime made during an investigative measure or court proceedings shall be entered into the record of the investigative measure or of the court hearing. 94.     According to Article 180, information about crimes must be examined and decided upon immediately, or in cases where it is necessary to check whether there are lawful and sufficient grounds to institute proceedings, within ten days following the receipt of such information. Within this period, additional documents, explanations or other materials may be requested, the scene of the incident inspected, persons arrested and searched if there