Communicated on 8 December 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 13343/15 Argishti KIVIRYAN against Armenia lodged on 23 February 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Argishti Kiviryan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Sahakyan and Mr Y. Varosyan , lawyers practising in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 24 August 2013 the applicant, a well-known activist, took part in a peaceful protest against a construction project in one of the districts of Yerevan. It appears that the rally was dispersed by the police officers present at the site and a number of the participants were arrested, allegedly with excessive use of force. It further appears from a video recording submitted by the applicant that a police officer, V.V., started aggressively screaming at him, agitated apparently by something the applicant had said, and was calmed and prevented by others from attacking the applicant. The applicant was later forced into the back left side of a police car by two other police officers, with police officer V.V. entering the back seat from the other side. The words “Do not hit him. [You are] being filmed.” can be heard. The applicant alleges that on the way to the police station he was assaulted in the car by Officer V.V. and another police officer, S.S., who was sitting in the front passenger seat. He received blows and was sworn at by the two officers.

According to “the record of bringing a person to a police station” ( Արձանագրություն անձին ոստիկանության բաժին բերելու մասին ), the applicant was brought to Arabkir police station at 4 p.m. by Officers V.V., S.S. and A.K. for the purpose of initiating an administrative case against him for “disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer”. It was stated in the record that, prior to its drawing up, the applicant ’ s health had rapidly deteriorated while he had been in the police station ’ s courtyard and he had been taken to hospital by ambulance, which was why he had not signed the record.

The applicant alleges that after arriving at the police station with multiple injuries, no medical assistance was provided to him and he was left lying on the ground in front of the police station for more than an hour. It appears from another video recording submitted by the applicant that at one point a police officer came out of the police station and threatened to start kicking the applicant.

At around 5.20 p.m. the applicant was taken from the police station by ambulance to Grigor Lusavorich medical centre with a suspected concussion.

At around 7 p.m. an inspector from Arabkir police station, who had been notified of the applicant ’ s injuries by the medical staff, interviewed the applicant at the medical centre. The applicant made statements in respect of the ill-treatment that he had allegedly endured in the police car, including multiple blows and an attempt to strangle him.

At around 11.15 p.m. the applicant ’ s state of health worsened and he was transferred to Armenia medical centre.

On the same date a senior investigator from Arabkir police station instituted a criminal case under Article 316 of the Criminal Code (violence or threat of violence against a public official) following a complaint by Officer V.V., who alleged that the applicant had assaulted him in the police car by punching him on his forearm and then biting it.

On the same date the police car was examined by an inspector from Arabkir police station and stains resembling blood were found on the left side of the back seat and the left back door.

On 26 August 2013 the criminal case was transferred to the Special Investigative Service (SIS) for further investigation.

On 27 August 2013 the criminal case was taken over by an SIS investigator. That decision stated that the applicant had also alleged to have been ill-treated in the police car.

On 28 August 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the SIS, outlining the ill-treatment that he had allegedly endured in the police car and requesting that he undergo a forensic medical examination.

On the same date the SIS investigator ordered that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination. A copy of this decision was received by a forensic medical expert on 29 August 2013.

On an unspecified date the forensic medical expert examined the applicant. According to his report produced on 9 September 2013, the applicant had two injuries on his face, which had already scarred, a bruise on his eye-lid, a bruise on the right side of his chest, three bruises on the front side of his right shoulder, scratches on his right upper arm, and numerous bruises on his upper arms and left forearm. The injuries in question had been inflicted by blunt objects.

It appears that in the course of the investigation the SIS investigator questioned Police Officers V.V., S.S. and A.K. as witnesses. Officer V.V. submitted that during his transportation to the police station the applicant had shown resistance, had demanded that he be set free and had threatened that otherwise he would harm himself and accuse the officers of ill-treatment, after which he had smashed his face against the handle of the car door. When V.V. had tried to prevent further self-harm by the applicant by firmly restraining him using both arms, the applicant had punched and bit his forearm. It appears that Officers S.S. and A.K. made similar submissions.

On 19 September 2013 the SIS investigator questioned the applicant as a witness. The applicant denied having inflicted self-harm or assaulted a police officer and described how on the way to the police station the police officer, who had earlier verbally assaulted him at the rally, had sat next to him in the police car and had grabbed him by the throat and repeatedly punched him with his other hand on his body and face. At one point the police officer who was sitting in the front passenger seat turned around and also punched him several times in his chest. The applicant also provided a link to the above-mentioned video of his arrest on an online video-sharing website.

On 4 October 2013 a forensic expert confirmed that the stains found in the police car were blood. Those found on the back seat were of the same blood type as that of the applicant, while it was not possible to establish the blood type of the stains found on the door.

On 6 November 2013 the SIS investigator decided not to prosecute Officers V.V. and S.S. for lack of criminal conduct in their actions. The investigator found that the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment had been rebutted by the evidence in the case, concluding that: (a) the injuries on the applicant ’ s chest had resulted from a legitimate use of force by Officer V.V., who had tried to prevent the applicant ’ s unlawful behaviour and his escape; (b) the injuries on his face had resulted from self-harm after the applicant had smashed his face against the area of the car door handle; and (c) the other injuries on the applicant ’ s body, namely the scratches on his upper arms and the bruises on his shoulder and forearms, had resulted from the skirmishes between the police officers and the protesters during the rally.

On 7 November 2013 the applicant was formally charged under Article 316 and Article 333 (false reporting of a crime) of the Criminal Code. Those charges were later dropped on 27 December 2013 on the supervising prosecutor orders.

On 18 January 2014 the applicant contested the decision of 6 November 2013 before the courts, alleging that the investigation had not been effective.

On 27 March and 4 June 2014 respectively the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan and the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeals and upheld the investigator ’ s decision.

On 27 June 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation in a decision of 8 August 2014. A copy of that decision was served on the applicant on 23 August 2014.

B. Relevant domestic law

For a summary of the 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).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his transportation to Arabkir police station and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into these allegations.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit copies of the transcripts of the interviews conducted with Police Officers V.V., S.S. and A.K. in the course of the investigation.