CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 March 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41556/17 Gayane ARUSTAMYAN against Armenia lodged on 31 May 2017 communicated on 28 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 7 May 2015 the applicant was involved in a verbal altercation with several police officers in the street. According to the applicant, she was hemmed in by the police officers, who handcuffed her forcibly by twisting her arms and forced her into a police car, where one of the officers threatened her saying “see what we are going to do with you”, while others fondled her body and grabbed her breast. She was taken to a police station where she remained handcuffed for some time. Later the police officers were unable to open one of the cuffs, which apparently got blocked, and it was possible to unlock it only three hours later. The applicant apparently felt overwhelmed with the situation, which was further compounded by the fact that the whole process was being filmed. Upon the applicant’s request, the police called an ambulance. However, she refused hospitalisation and was released shortly thereafter. On 8 May 2015 the applicant underwent a medical examination at a hospital and on 9 May 2015 she was examined by a forensic medical expert. On both occasions haematomas were recorded on her left arm and lower forearm, as well as on the right side of her front chest. The forensic doctor noted that the injuries could have possibly been inflicted on 7 May 2015. A criminal case instituted upon the applicant’s complaint was discontinued since the use of force and handcuffing had been deemed necessary – the applicant had committed an administrative offence by insulting the officers and had resisted arrest. It was held that the applicant could possibly have sustained the injuries during her arrest. The applicant contested the above-mentioned decision, complaining, inter   alia , that the authorities had failed to establish the circumstances of all of her injuries and that confrontations had not been held with all the implicated officers. Her complaints were dismissed by the domestic authorities and the final court decision was served on her on 7 December 2016. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular , was the force used in respect of the applicant during her arrest strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   100 ‑ 01, ECHR 2015)? Was the applicant subjected to sexual abuse during her transfer in a police car ? Was she subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of being handcuffed throughout her police custody (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 117, ECHR   2014 (extracts); Raninen v. Finland , 16 December 1997, §§ 56-59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII; and Pranjić ‑ M-Lukić v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 4938/16, §§ 72-73, 2 June 2020)? The Government are invited to submit the applicant’s medical certificate issued by a civilian hospital on 8 May 2015.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Bouyid , cited above, §§ 114-23), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic law provide for a possibility to claim compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her alleged ill-treatment (see Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia , no.   22999/06, § 46, ECHR 2012, and Roth v. Germany , nos. 6780/18 and   30776/18, §§ 90-93 , 22 October 2020)?