Communicated on 29 January 2018

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 48147/16 Alik ZAKARYAN against Armenia lodged on 5 August 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Alik Zakaryan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1983 and lives in the town of Martuni . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Asatryan , a lawyer practising in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is mentally disabled and appears to suffer from a personality disorder. He alleges the following.

On 19 July 2014 at around 3 p.m. he was stopped on the road near Geghovit village in the Martuni region by a group of police officers, which included officers of Martuni Military Police Station of the Sevan Garrison, Martuni Police Station and the National Security Service, who punched him, handcuffed him and put him in a police car. The applicant, who was apparently suspected of being a foreign spy, was then taken to Martuni Military Police Station where the officers continued beating and humiliating him. This included squeezing his jaw and wrapping his shirt around his head while punching him in the back. He was then ordered to lower his trousers and was filmed naked. It appears that the applicant ’ s trousers were torn. At around 8 p.m. the applicant was released, apparently after his identity was established.

The applicant alleges that on 20 July 2014 his mother complained to the police about the above-mentioned events.

On 22 July 2014 the applicant ’ s mother lodged a complaint with the General Prosecutor ’ s Office, alleging the applicant ’ s ill-treatment and requesting that the perpetrators be punished. She also claimed, inter alia , that the applicant ’ s arrest had been effected in the presence of many villagers and had been filmed by the arresting officers.

On 29 July 2014 an investigator from the Investigative Unit of the Fifth Garrison of the Ministry of Defence ordered that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination.

On the same day the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert.

On 8 August 2014 the forensic medical expert produced his opinion, according to which there was a bruise measuring 10 cm by 5 cm on the right side of the back of the applicant ’ s chest and two bruises measuring 0.7 cm by 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm by 0.6 cm on the applicant ’ s right upper arm, which had been inflicted by hard blunt objects. It could not be ruled out that the injuries had been sustained on the date alleged.

The applicant alleges that the forensic medical expert failed to record a number of injuries, including a bruise on his pelvis, yellowish spots on his shoulders and left arm, and injuries to his face. Furthermore, he was not familiarised with the expert opinion.

On the same day the investigator instituted a criminal case under Article 375 § 1 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power).

On 16 August 2014 the applicant ’ s mother was questioned and reiterated her allegations.

On unspecified dates in August and September 2014 a number of police officers were questioned, including four police officers from Martuni Police Station, seven police officers from Martuni Military Police Station and two officers of the National Security Service. It appears that all of them denied the applicant ’ s allegations and submitted that the applicant had resisted during his arrest and tried to flee, as a result of which Captains K.K. and A.G. had grabbed him by the arms and tried to prevent his flight, during which the applicant had hit his back against a stone.

On 8 October 2014 a prosecutor of the Sevan Garrison Military Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered the investigator to take several investigative measures, including recognising the applicant as a victim, conducting confrontations if there were discrepancies between his statements and those of the witnesses and questioning a resident of the Geghovit village, S.S.

On the same date the applicant was formally recognised as a victim.

On 30 January 2015 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings. Relying on the testimony of the police officers, he found that the applicant ’ s trousers had already been torn before his arrest, while the injuries recorded by the forensic expert had been sustained as a result of the force used by Captains A.G. and K.K. for the purpose of overcoming the applicant ’ s resistance at the time of his arrest. The applicant had allegedly fallen against a rock and had been grabbed by his arms when being put in the police car. The actions of the police officers had therefore been lawful.

On 16 February 2015 the applicant ’ s mother contested the investigator ’ s decision before the General Prosecutor ’ s Office, which dismissed her complaint by its decision of 23 February 2015.

On 3 April 2015 the applicant ’ s mother contested the investigator ’ s decision before the courts.

On 1 July and 3 September 2015 respectively the trial court and the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s mother ’ s appeals and upheld the investigator ’ s decision.

On 28 September 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by a decision of the Court of Cassation of 13 January 2016. A copy of that decision was served on the applicant ’ s mother on 6 February 2016.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 375 § 1 of the Criminal Code prescribes that abuse of power or official capacity or exceeding power or official capacity by a chief (commander), as well as inaction of an authority, if such acts are committed for selfish or personal motives or in the interests of a group and if they cause significant damage, are punishable by two to five years ’ imprisonment.

For a summary of other 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).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he suffered ill-treatment at the time of his arrest and in police custody 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 arrest and while in police custody, 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 by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit, in particular, a copy of the applicant ’ s mother ’ s complaint lodged with the police on 20 July 2014 and a copy of the investigator ’ s decision of 29 July 2014 ordering that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination.