THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44286/12 Armen BADALYAN against Armenia lodged on 28 June 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Armen Badalyan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Metsamor . He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Sahakyan , Mr R. 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 23 July 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of threatening to use violence against the investigator in charge of the criminal case against his ex-wife.

On 25 July 2011 the applicant was charged with the same crime.

On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Armavir Regional Court seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months.

On the same date the Regional Court examined and granted the investigator ’ s application, ordering the applicant ’ s detention for a period of two months, namely until 23 September 2011. It found that the motion was substantiated, since the applicant partially admitted his guilt and the case materials provided sufficient grounds for believing that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation, having regard to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the offence in question.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal seeking to cancel the detention order and claiming that the investigating authority had not obtained any materials or evidence to substantiate the reasons for which it had sought to detain him and that they failed to take into account the applicant ’ s personality.

On 11 August 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant ’ s detention was based on a reasonable suspicion, and found the grounds invoked by the Regional Court in justification of detention to be sufficient. It also noted that less severe measures were insufficient to safeguard the applicant ’ s proper conduct.

On 9 September 2011 the investigation into the applicant ’ s case was concluded and the case was transferred to the Regional Court for trial.

On 13 September 2011 the applicant ’ s criminal case was set down for trial. By the same decision the trial court decided that the applicant ’ s detention on remand was “ to remain unchanged ”.

On an unspecified date the applicant filed a motion with the Regional Court seeking to be released. He argued, inter alia, that there were not sufficient reasons to keep the applicant in detention.

On 13 December 2011 the Regional Court examined and dismissed this motion. The Regional Court found that the applicant ’ s detention was ordered by its decision of 13 September 2011. It also noted that the existing materials of the case were sufficient to conclude that the applicant ’ s detention was justified.

On 19 December 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

On 28 December 2011 the Criminal Court of Appeal left the appeal unexamined. T he Criminal Court of Appeal found that there was no possibility under domestic law to appeal against the decision of the District Court “ to leave the applicant ’ s detention unchanged”.

The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

On 20 March 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

On 11 May 2012 the applicant filed a new motion with the Regional Court seeking to be released. He argued, inter alia, that the collection of evidence against the applicant had been finalised and that there were not sufficient reasons to keep him under detention.

On 4 June 2012 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s motion having regard to the dangerousness and nature of the alleged offence and the fact that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation.

On 14 June 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

On 19 January 2012 the Criminal Court of Appeal left the applicant ’ s appeal unexamined on the same grounds as indicated in its decision of 28 December 2011.

The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

On 17 August 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

On 6 August 2012 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged, imposing a sentence of one and a half years ’ imprisonment.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Code of Criminal Procedure (in force from 12 January 1999)

According to Article 132, the arrested person must be released upon the decision of the authority dealing with the case if (1) the suspicion of having committed an offence has not been confirmed; (2) there is no need to keep the person in custody; or (3) the maximum time-limit for an arrest prescribed by this Code has expired and the court has not adopted a decision to detain the accused.

Article 136 § 2 provides that detention and bail may be imposed only by a court decision upon the investigator ’ s or the prosecutor ’ s motion or of the court ’ s own motion during the court examination of the criminal case.

According to Article 135 § 1, the court, the prosecutor, the investigator or the body of inquiry can impose a preventive measure only when the materials obtained in the criminal case provide sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect or the accused may: (1) abscond from the authority dealing with the case; (2) hinder the examination of the case during the pre-trial or court proceedings by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the criminal proceedings, by concealing or falsifying materials significant for the case, by failing to appear upon the summons of the authority dealing with the case without valid reasons or by other means; (3) commit an act prohibited by criminal law; (4) avoid criminal liability and serving the imposed sentence; and (5) hinder the execution of the judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts, when ordering and extending his detention, failed to adopt reasoned decisions, which resulted in his unjustified and lengthy detention.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the applicant ’ s detention, as required by Ar ticle 5 § 3 of the Convention?