Published on 11 April 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application nos. 8194/17 and 9779/17 Davit SANASARYAN against Armenia and Arsen OHANYAN against Armenia

lodged on 17 January 2017 and 18 January 2017 respectively communicated on 21 March 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant in the first case, Mr Davit Sanasaryan (the first applicant), and the applicant in the second case, Mr Arsen Ohanyan (the second applicant), are Armenian nationals who were born in 1983 and 1985, respectively, and live in Yerevan. They are represented before the Court by Ms Karinna Moskalenko and Ms Anna Maralyan, lawyers practising in Strasbourg.

The circumstances of the case

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

In the early morning of 17 July 2016 an armed group stormed a police compound in Yerevan, taking police officers hostage and putting forward political demands to the government. From 17 until 30 July 2016 protest rallies gripped the Armenian capital, according to the applicants, in order to prevent bloodshed between the police and the gunmen.

The first applicant – who is a civic activist and was, at the material time, a member of a local political party – submits that in the evening of 17 July 2016 he joined a protest rally organised in Freedom Square to discuss the ongoing situation. However, he was soon arrested and taken to a police station where he was allegedly kept for around four hours. The applicant submits that no arrest record was drawn up for his police custody.

On 18 July 2016 both applicants took part in another rally in Freedom Square, allegedly organised by the first applicant. It appears that the latter delivered a speech calling on people to take to the streets. It can be observed from the video footage submitted that when the first applicant was giving an interview to journalists, a number of police officers surrounded and arrested him. The second applicant submits that when he tried to enquire about the reasons for the first applicant’s arrest, the police officers arrested him too. It transpires from the applicants’ submissions that they were released within three hours after their arrest.

The applicants did not pursue any remedies, claiming that there were no effective domestic remedies for the breach of their rights under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 2, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their deprivation of liberty, respectively, on 17 and 18 July 2016 was effected in the absence of any grounds and was unrecorded.

2. The second applicant also complains under Article 5 § 2 that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest.

3. Lastly, the applicants complain under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that their arrest at the site of the rally, respectively, on 17 and 18 July 2016 infringed their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies with regard to their respective complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1? The Government are requested to explain whether there were any effective remedies in the domestic legal system in respect of these complaints, as well as to submit examples of the relevant domestic case-law.

2. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the first applicant’s deprivation of liberty on 17 July 2016 and the applicants’ deprivation of liberty on 18 July 2016 based on a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence? Was their deprivation of liberty lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1?

The Government are invited to submit all the relevant records drawn up in respect of the applicants’ police custody, if any.

3. Was the second applicant informed promptly, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his arrest, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

4. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention taken alone and read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?