CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 8 December 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4116/16 Hayk KYUREGHYAN against Armenia lodged on 29 December 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Hayk Kyureghyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1983 and at the time of introduction of the application was serving his sentence in Nubarashen Remand Prison. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Sahakyan, Mr Y. Varosyan and Mr V. Grigoryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan and London. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 12 June 2014 the applicant participated in a protest in front of a court building in Yerevan where a well-known political activist and his supporters were on trial. It appears from a video recording submitted by the applicant that at one point he climbed on the roof of a car and started randomly firing an air gun. The police officers present at the site approached the applicant, who started firing at them and yelling threats. The applicant then jumped on the bonnet of the car and slipped. Two police officers took advantage of the moment, grabbed the applicant and pulled him off the bonnet, after which the applicant was within seconds overpowered by at least three to four police officers, who placed him face down on the bonnet of the adjacent car, bent his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. The applicant was then escorted to a nearby police van and taken to Kentron police station. The applicant alleges that on the way to the police station about four or five police officers who were accompanying him starting punching and swearing at him inside the van. At the police station he was taken to an office where two of the police officers who had arrested him and three other officers who joined them continued punching him in various parts of his body. He was then taken to another office where his ill-treatment continued by other officers, two of whom were wearing civilian clothes. On the same date at 2.30 p.m. an investigator from Kentron police station, S.N., drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of having committed “hooliganism”. A criminal case was initiated against the applicant and was assigned to S.N. Later that day the applicant was transferred to the police holding cells in Yerevan. At 7.20 p.m. the feldsher of the police holding cells sent official notification to an investigator of Kentron police station stating that at the time of the applicant’s admission a number of injuries had been detected on his body, including red marks on his arms, chest, neck, back and shins, a scratch measuring 2 cm on his right shoulder, and a swollen nose with a red mark. On 14 June 2014 investigator S.N. ordered that the applicant be examined by a forensic medical expert. A number of questions were put to the expert concerning the presence of injuries on the applicant’s body, their origin, location and age. On 16 June 2014 investigator S.N. posed additional questions to the forensic medical expert, specifically as to whether the applicant could have sustained his injuries in the circumstances featured in the above-mentioned video. On an unspecified date a forensic medical expert examined the applicant. According to his expert opinion produced on 20 June 2014, the applicant had bruises on his nose, chest, arms, right elbow and right wrist and scratches on his right shoulder and left elbow, which had been inflicted by blunt objects. It could not be ruled that those injuries had been sustained in the circumstances featuring in the video. It appears that at some point the applicant was visited by an independent prison-monitoring group, which also noted his injuries. On 19 June 2014 the applicant complained to the Special Investigative Service, alleging that he had been ill-treated in police custody and requesting that a criminal case be initiated against the police officers. On 26 June 2014 an investigator from the SIS took a statement from the applicant, who alleged that he had been ill-treated in the police van and at Kentron police station. In total about ten police officers had beaten him. On the same date an SIS investigator instituted criminal proceedings under Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code (exceeding official authority, accompanied with violence) on the basis of the applicant’s allegations. On 30 June 2014 the applicant was formally recognised as a victim. It appears that in the course of the investigation a number of police officers were questioned, including those who had arrested the applicant, all of whom denied the applicant’s ill-treatment. On 22 July 2014 the applicant was questioned by the SIS investigator and provided further details of his ill-treatment. On 3 October 2014 the SIS investigator questioned as a witness the head of a local human-rights NGO, who stated that he had been aware that the applicant had been visited in the police holding cells by the independent prison-monitoring group, whose members had concluded that the applicant had been ill-treated in police custody. On 13 October 2014 the SIS decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings, dismissing the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and finding that the police officers had legitimately applied force at the time of his arrest in order to prevent his unlawful behaviour and because of the applicant’s resistance and failure to obey lawful orders. On 23 October 2014 the applicant contested the investigator’s decision before the General Prosecutor’s Office, which rejected his complaint on 3   November 2014. On 10 December 2014 the applicant contested the decision of the SIS before the courts, alleging that the investigation had not been effective. On 29 January and 25 March 2015 respectively the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan and the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the decision of the investigating authority. On 15 April 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation in a decision of 20 July 2015. B.     Relevant domestic law For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions see the judgment in the case of Zalyan and Others v. Armenia (see nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, §§ 148-54 and § 172, 17 March 2016). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his transportation to the police station and upon arrival there, and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment during his transportation to Kentron police station and upon arrival there, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?