CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2013

.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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 75636/11 Albert KHACHATRYAN against Armenia lodged on 25 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Albert Khachatryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Artamed Village. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Sahakyan and Ms G. Sargsyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   1.     The applicant’s arrest and detention On 30 April 2011 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of banditry. On the same date he was charged under Article 175 §§ 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code for banditry by illegal entry into an apartment and use of a weapon. On the same date the investigator of the Nor Nork investigation unit filed a motion with the Avan and Nor Nork District Court of Yerevan, seeking to have the applicant detained for two months. On the same date the District Court granted the investigator’s motion stating, inter alia , that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged. Upon appeal, on 23 May 2011 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision to authorise the applicant’s detention. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 5 August 2011 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit. 2.     The applicant’s release on bail On 30 May 2011 counsel filed a motion with the District Court seeking the applicant’s release on bail. On the same date the District Court granted the above motion, finding that the payment of the amount of bail, that is one million Armenian Drams, would secure the applicant’s proper behaviour in the course of the investigation. The decision further stated that the applicant should be immediately released from detention following submission of proof of the payment of bail. The next day at about 10.30 a.m. counsel paid the full amount of bail and submitted the relevant receipt. According to the applicant, he was released only in the evening at about 8.00 p.m. B.     Relevant domestic law The Code of Criminal Procedure (in force from 12 January 1999) According to Article 142 § 1 (6), the accused shall be released on the basis of a decision of the body conducting the criminal proceedings when the amount of bail fixed by the court has been paid. According to Article 142 § 3, the head of the administration of the detention facility shall immediately release the accused, once the copy of the relevant decision of the body conducting the investigation is received. According to Article 143 § 5, upon receiving proof of payment of bail, the body conducting the criminal proceedings shall immediately issue an order to release the accused. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was not immediately released from detention after payment of the amount of bail fixed by the District Court in its decision of 30 May 2011.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s detention from 10.00 a.m. until 8.00 p.m. on 31 May 2011 lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are requested to provide reasons for the delay in the applicant’s release following the payment of bail.