CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } Published on 10 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11065/17 Levon BARSEGHYAN against Armenia lodged on 27 January 2017 communicated on 23 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest after his public speeches made at demonstrations, as well as his alleged ill-treatment while at the police custody. The applicant – a well-known civic activist in Armenia – participated in demonstrations held in support of a group of gunmen who stormed Patrol Service Battalion of Yerevan Police, taking police officers hostage and putting forward political demands ( inter alia , that all political prisoners be released; no piece of land be ceded to Azerbaijan; and that the then Government resign). In his speeches the applicant criticized the government and, in particular, the then President of Armenia. On 27 July 2016, at about 3.30 a.m. he was arrested on suspicion of illegal possession of firearms and was brought to Shengavit police station. According to the applicant, he was not released three hours after his deprivation of liberty, as envisaged by law, but on 27 July 2016, at about 8.30 a.m. he was transferred to Kumayri police station situated in Gyumri (120 km away from the capital) where he was served with a summons to be questioned as a witness on the same day at the same police station where he was originally arrested. He was thus transferred back to Shengavit police station at 4.10 p.m. Eventually, a record was drawn up on his arrest at about 7 p.m. The applicant was released only on 29 July 2016 at 3 p.m. According to the applicant, during the first fourteen hours of his police custody, the authorities did not allow him to take his medicine and at one point seized it from the applicant, refused him access to toilet and did not provide him with food or water. On 22 November 2016 the applicant filed a criminal complaint, complaining of his unlawful arrest and ill-treatment during his police custody. While it appears that the authorities opened an investigation, as of October 2024, the investigation is still pending. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of his alleged ill-treatment during his police custody (that is, alleged failure by the police to allow him to take his prescribed medicine, seizure of that medicine, alleged lack of access to toilet and failure to provide him with food or water during the first fourteen hours of his detention). He also complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest was not based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence. Rather, he was arrested because of his speeches critical to the government and for his active participation in demonstrations. The applicant also appears to complain that his deprivation of liberty between 3.30 a.m. until about 7 p.m. on 27 July 2016 (when an arrest record was drawn up at Shengavit police station) allegedly remained unacknowledged. Lastly, he complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that his arrest after his public speeches at demonstrations was in breach of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his complaint under Article 5 of the Convention (see question 3 below), as required by Article   35 §   1 (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 208, 22 December 2020)? In particular, did there exist any procedure, under the domestic law, to contest the lawfulness of one’s arrest effected (under the rules of criminal procedure) on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and to obtain compensation in the event of a violation. The Government are invited to submit specific examples of the domestic practice.   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while in police custody, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, was he deprived of food, water and access to toilet during the first fourteen hours of his police custody, did the police seize his medicine and was his request to take his prescribed medicine denied?   The Government are invited to submit all the relevant documents of criminal case no. 62219216 pertaining to the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.   3.     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 applicant in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was his deprivation of liberty based on a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence? Was the deprivation of liberty lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1? Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty on 27 July 2016 between 3.30 a.m. and 7 p.m. documented?   The Government are invited to submit all the relevant records drawn up in respect of the applicant’s police custody.   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?