CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2025

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 11072/17 and 11083/17 Marut VANYAN against Armenia and Robert ANANYAN against Armenia communicated on 15 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 29 July 2016 the applicant journalists covered a protest march, during which the riot police fired stun grenades to disband the demonstration. It appears from the video and photo material of the incident that, as a result, both applicants suffered shrapnel injuries. In addition, the first applicant submits that during the dispersal of the demonstration he was allegedly battered by plain-clothes officers, who moreover broke his camera and took away his journalistic equipment. On the same date he was admitted to hospital and received inpatient treatment for ten days. According to his discharge sheet, the applicant was diagnosed with knee contusions and bleeding wounds on his shin and upper limbs. In addition, it can be seen from the submitted photo and video material that the first applicant also sustained injuries to his right shoulder and to his head which he allegedly suffered as a result of his above-noted battery. In the video footage submitted, civilians armed with metal rods, one of them holding a riot shield, could be seen in and near the rows of the riot police chasing the protesters. According to the second applicant, following the dispersal of the rally, when he was in a car on his way to the hospital, police officers forced him out of the vehicle and thus prevented his hospitalisation. While on 3 August 2016 the domestic authorities opened an investigation into the obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists (a criminal offence under Article 164 of the former Criminal Code) covering the protest march of 29-30 July 2016, and accorded the applicants the procedural status of a victim, the applicants claim that the investigation will not be effective since, inter alia , it lacked independence. Notably, on 28   December 2016 a senior police officer, L.Y. (the then head of the police troops), involved and allegedly in charge of the impugned operation was awarded with a medal for excellent maintenance of public order by a presidential decree. The applicants also claim that other implicated police officers, including L.Y., were neither reprimanded nor dismissed. According to the latest updates submitted by the applicants, the criminal investigation is stayed however the reasons thereof are unclear. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated as a result of unlawful and unnecessary use of stun grenades by the police. The first applicant also complains of his alleged battery during the dispersal of the demonstration by plain-clothes officers. The second applicant additionally complains that the police used force against him and prevented his hospitalisation. Both applicants complain of the lack of effective investigation into their alleged ill-treatment. In addition, relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the first applicant alleges that he was battered by plain-clothes officers in order to prevent him from covering the events in question. Lastly, he complains under Article   1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his assailants broke his camera and seized his journalistic equipment (including another camera and batteries). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common questions:   1.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies with regard to their respective complaints under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention (see questions 2, 3, 4 and 6 below), as required by Article   35 §   1 (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and   29   others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014)?   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention as a result of the use of stun grenades by the police on 29 July 2016? The Government are requested to clarify whether the use of stun grenades complied with the domestic regulations and whether their use was properly authorised .   3.     Has the first applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention as a result of his alleged battery on 29 July 2016 by plain-clothes officers?   4.     Has the second applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention when the police dragged him out of the car allegedly by the use of force and prevented his hospitalisation?   5.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   114-123, ECHR 2015), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants (see questions 2 and 3 above) in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Regard being had to the applicants’ complaint that L.Y., allegedly in charge of the impugned operation of 29 July 2016, was awarded with a medal for excellent maintenance of public order, was the investigation independent in the present case?   The Government are requested to submit all documents pertaining to the investigation, including copies of the applicants’ interview records and forensic medical examination reports regarding their injuries if any.   Case-specific questions:   Application no. 11072/17   6.     Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s right to freedom of expression? In particular, was the applicant’s alleged battery, as well as the alleged seizure of his journalistic equipment perpetrated by State agents ( see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§   158-59, 10   January 2019)? If so, has there been a violation of the first applicant’s right to freedom of expression?