CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2024

.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 29 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56889/17 Armen GHAZARYAN against Armenia lodged on 31 July 2017 communicated on 9 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was charged by the Russian authorities with a number of offences and was declared wanted. On 15 June 2013 he voluntarily turned himself in to the Armenian authorities. On the same date the same charges were brought against him and he was detained by a court order in Armenia. The applicant was placed in the Nubarashen Remand Prison. The applicant alleges that the cells where he was kept, which measured between 27.5 and 29.9 sq. m., accommodated between 11-15 inmates at various times. He further alleges poor hygiene, humidity, presence of insects and foul smell in the cells and lack of availability of proper shower facilities. It appears that the applicant’s case went to trial on 15 January 2014. On 10 June 2016 the applicant lodged an application for release with the trial court, arguing that his detention was lengthy and unjustified, which was dismissed by the trial court and the court of appeal on 6 September and 6 October 2016 respectively, on the ground of the gravity of the charges against the applicant. On 8 July 2019 the trial court found the applicant partially guilty. On 11   September 2019 the applicant was released from detention while his appeal was pending. On 1 July 2020 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the personal space available in the cell and the sanitary conditions, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment? (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 99-141, 20 October 2016   2.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Muradkhanyan v. Armenia , no. 12895/06, §§ 80 ‑ 86, 5 June 2012)? In particular, did the courts provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s continued detention (see Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia , no.   629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20 October 2016) and did the authorities show due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings?   3.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (see Grigoryan v. Armenia , no. 3627/06, §§ 126-32, 10 July 2012)   The Government are requested to provide copies of all the relevant court decisions concerning the applicant’s detention taken during the pre-trial and the trial stage of the proceedings, as well as the applicant’s appeals against those decisions.