Communicated on 8 December 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 5007/15 Yeghia NERSESYAN against Armenia lodged on 12 January 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yeghia Nersesyan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Yegoryan , 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.

On 24 August 2013 the applicant 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 participants were arrested, allegedly with excessive use of force. The applicant alleges that he was thrown on the ground and then pulled by his left leg towards a police car by several police officers. At around 1.20 p.m. the applicant was taken to Arabkir police station where an administrative case was initiated against him for “disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer”.

On the same day the applicant lodged a complaint with the head of Arabkir police station, alleging that he had sustained injuries during arrest. In particular, his left knee and elbow had been injured and he had bruises on various parts of his body.

At around 6.30 p.m. the applicant was questioned by an inspector from Arabkir police station regarding the circumstances in which he had sustained the alleged injuries. The applicant described how he had been allegedly pushed to the ground and pulled towards the police car. He submitted that his injuries had been inflicted by the “red berets” who had arrested him and whom he would be able to identify.

On the same date a senior inspector of the Arabkir police station ordered that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination, which was to be carried out by an expert of the Forensic Medicine Centre of the Ministry of Health ( Õ€Õ€ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¸Õ²Õ»Õ¡ÕºÕ¡Õ°Õ¸Ö‚Õ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¡Õ­Õ¡Ö€Õ¡Ö€Õ¸Ö‚Õ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¤Õ¡Õ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¢ÕªÕ·Õ¯Õ¸Ö‚Õ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¡Õ£Õ¸Ö€Õ®Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¥Õ¶Õ¿Ö€Õ¸Õ¶ ).

The applicant, who was apparently released on the same day and given a copy of that decision, submits that he appeared on the same day at the Forensic Medicine Centre but no medical examination was carried out because it was a Saturday. When he went back on a weekday, the relevant expert was absent.

On 27 August 2013 the applicant ’ s complaint was forwarded to the Special Investigative Service (SIS) for further examination.

On 30 August 2013 the applicant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging examination at a private clinic; a rupture of the medial meniscus of the left knee joint was detected.

On 30 August and 1, 2, 3 and 18 September 2013 an SIS investigator took statements from nine police officers. One of the police officers who had arrested the applicant, V.A., submitted that the applicant together with other activists had held an unauthorised protest. At one point the applicant and the other activists had held hands and blocked the traffic so the police officers had had to push them off the roadway. Then the applicant and the other activists managed to lie down on the roadway but were again removed by the police officers. After that the applicant lay down on the pavement and the other activists followed suit and clung onto various parts of the applicant ’ s body. The police officers tried to make them stand up and leave the street by pulling them by their arms and legs, but they refused their orders and started making sudden chaotic movements. Eventually, the police officers managed to free the applicant and to make him stand up. However, when he was being taken to the police car, the other activists tried to prevent his arrest by clinging onto his arms and legs. The applicant then urged his supporters not to interfere and voluntarily sat into the police car.

The other police officers made similar submissions.

On 4 September 2013 the SIS investigator took statements from two local residents who described how the activists had blocked the street and refused to obey the police officers ’ orders. Some of the activists were then put in police cars and taken away.

On 6 September 2013 the relevant medical expert received a copy of the senior inspector ’ s decision of 24 August 2013 ordering the applicant ’ s forensic medical examination and on an unspecified date examined the applicant.

On 7 and 26 September 2013 the SIS investigator took statements from the applicant who submitted, inter alia , that the police officers had already unblocked the roadway when one police officer, A.P., had approached him, grabbed him by his clothes and said that he would take the applicant to a police station. There had then been a skirmish between other activists and the police officers, as a result of which the applicant had felt sick. The police officers had backed off and he had been seated on a chair and given water. When the police officers had returned, the head of Arabkir police station, G.A., had ordered that the applicant be arrested. He had then been attacked by a “red beret”, who had pushed him to the ground and started pulling him, including pulling him by his left knee, as a result of which he had been injured. He had pleaded to the officer to stop, that he had been in pain, but the officer had continued to pull. The applicant also stated that he had not been beaten by any of the police officers during the protest.

On 28 September 2013 the medical expert produced his opinion, according to which the applicant had had a colourless area on the back of his left knee, which was the result of a healed scratch. As to the rupture of the medial meniscus specified in the submitted medical documents, it had been sustained much earlier than the date of the rally.

On the same date the SIS investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the applicant ’ s complaint. Relying on the statements of the police officers and the two local residents, as well as the conclusions of the forensic medical expert, the investigator held that the physical force applied to the applicant had been provoked by the need to prevent a violation of public order. Moreover, no combat techniques or “special means” had been applied and no blows or intentional injuries had been inflicted. The investigator concluded that the police officers had not exceeded their authority and their actions had been legitimate.

On 8 November 2013 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office upheld this decision.

On 12 December 2013 the applicant contested this decision before the courts, alleging that the investigation had not been effective.

On 6 March and 7 May 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 31 May 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 2 July 2014. A copy of that decision was served on the applicant at some point after 16 July 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 the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?