CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s60836165 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     THIRD SECTION Application no. 63845/09 Aleksandr ARZUMANYAN against Armenia lodged on 2 November 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr. Aleksandr Arzumanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Simonyan, a lawyer 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 19 February 2008 presidential election in Armenia and post ‑ election demonstrations The applicant was a member of parliament at the material time. On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia. According to the applicant, during the elections he was the head of the main opposition candidate’s central election headquarters. It appears that immediately after the election, protest rallies were held by thousands of opposition 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 demonstrators stayed in that area around the clock, having set up tents. According to the applicant, he regularly attended the ongoing demonstrations and sit-ins. 2.     The events of 1 March 2008 and institution of criminal proceedings On 1 March 2008, apparently at some point between 6 and 7 a.m., police forces arrived on Freedom Square. It appears that clashes took place between the police and the demonstrators, who were forced out of the square. On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted for organising and holding unauthorised mass public events, making calls inciting to disobey the decisions ordering an end to the unauthorised events, illegal possession and carrying of weapons, and using violence, dangerous to life, against police officers who were carrying out their official duties. Some of the demonstrators who had fled Freedom Square relocated to the area surrounding the French Embassy and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office. It appears that later that day the violence escalated and more clashes took place in Yerevan between the law enforcement authorities and the opposition supporters. The clashes continued until late at night, resulting in ten deaths and many injured. On 2 March 2008 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted for organising mass disorder resulting in violence and casualties, and illegal possession and carrying of weapons. On the same day the first criminal case was joined to the second one (hereinafter the main criminal case). 3.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant On 10 March 2008 the applicant was arrested by officers of the National Security Service on suspicion of usurpation of power. On the same day the applicant was questioned as a suspect. He refused to testify and stated that his prosecution was politically motivated. On 5 May 2007 another set of criminal proceedings no.   58205607 had been instituted against the applicant and another individual and they had been charged under Article 190 § 3(1) of the Criminal Code (CC) with money laundering. On 12 March 2008 the investigator decided to modify the charges against the applicant and brought new charges against him under Articles 190 § 3(1) (money laundering), 225 § 3 (organising unlawful mass riots) and 300 § 1 (usurpation of power) of the CC. This decision stated that, from 24 to 26 April 2007 in Moscow, the applicant, in complicity with another person, with the aim of legitimising profits received through criminal means, concealed and distorted the true nature, origin, movement and type of management of the particularly large sum of 178,200 US dollars destined for them but transferred on 27 April 2007 to a bank in the names of nine dummies, in instalments each amounting to 19,800 US dollars. Furthermore, after the presidential election of 19 February 2008, the applicant joined the group of opposition supporters and, having conspired with them to usurp State power in violation of the constitutional order, actively participated in carrying out activities for that purpose, including discrediting the pre-election process and the conduct of the election, instilling distrust towards the results among large segments of the population, creating illusions of public discontent and revolt, thereby organising and holding mass public events in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, aimed at destabilising the internal political situation. During those events the applicant, three other members of parliament and a number of other opposition supporters of the above-mentioned goals incited and organised mass riots which took place in Yerevan on 1   and   2   March 2008 and involved mass violence, pogroms, arson, destruction and damage of public and private property, armed resistance to public officials, effected with the use of firearms, explosives and other adapted objects, as well as murder. On 12 March 2008 the investigator filed a motion with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. Also on that date, the District Court decided to grant the motion and to detain the applicant on remand for a period of two months. The District Court found that, taking into account the nature and gravity of the imputed offence and the fact that the maximum sentence for the offences in question exceeded one year’s imprisonment, the applicant, if he remained at large, might obstruct the examination of the case and abscond. The applicant’s detention was extended four times, to a total period of nine months during the pre-trial investigation. On 1 December 2008 the bill of indictment was finalised and the case was sent to court. On the same day the Yerevan Criminal Court decided to set the case down for trial. On 8 December 2008 the applicant’s lawyer applied to have the proceedings against the applicant terminated. Should this motion be dismissed, he requested that the case be remitted for additional investigation. He also applied for the applicant’s release on bail since the overall limit of his detention set out by domestic law had expired. On 10 December 2009 the judge of the District Court decided to dismiss the applicant’s motions. By the same decision the trial court decided that the applicant’s detention on remand was “to remain unchanged”. On 19 December 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. On 25 December 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal left the appeal unexamined. The Criminal Court of Appeal found that there was no possibility under domestic law to appeal against the decision of the District Court “to leave the applicant’s detention unchanged”. The applicant made several applications challenging the judge’s impartiality. All were dismissed by the judge as unfounded. On an unspecified date, following changes in the procedural law, the case was transmitted to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan for examination. On 18 March 2009 amendments were introduced to Articles 225 and 300 of the CC: Article 225 § 3 was repealed, while the substance of Article   300   § 1 was modified. On 31 March 2009 the prosecutor decided to drop and modify part of the charges against the applicant in view of the above amendments. In particular, the charge under Article 300 § 1 was dropped for lack of corpus delicti. The charge under Article 225 § 3 was replaced with a charge under Article 225 § 1 in view of the abolition of that provision. On 1 April 2009 the District Court decided to terminate the proceedings under Article 300 § 1 for lack of corpus delicti. By the same decision the District Court left the applicant’s detention unchanged on the same grounds as before. The applicant challenged this decision. On 15 April 2009 the Criminal Court of Appeal left the appeal unexamined. It found that there was no possibility under domestic law to appeal against the District Court’s decision to leave the applicant’s detention unchanged. On 22 June 2009 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged, imposing a five-year sentence. It further decided to absolve the applicant from serving his sentence, under a general amnesty declared by the Armenian parliament on 19 June 2009. On 21 July 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the District Court’s judgment. In his appeal he raised numerous arguments, including that the charge against him was trumped up and politically motivated. On 31 July 2009 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the appeal. On 28 August 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments to his appeal of 21 July 2009 and invoking, inter alia , Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. On 10 September 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible. B.     Relevant domestic law For the relevant domestic provisions and international documents see the Statement of Facts in the case of Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no.   23086/08, communicated on 30 November 2010. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the true reason for his prosecution and conviction was his opposition activism and participation in peaceful protest rallies. 2.     The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that he was discriminated against on the basis of his political views. QUESTIONS 1.     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?   2.     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?